Talk:Mike O'Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge

message: Here are some more images for use (if desired) in the article.
Image:Hoover_Dam_Bypass_Model.jpg|Model of the Hoover Dam Bypass
Image:Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge Construction 2007-03-28.jpg|Construction on west side as of Spring 2007
Xspartachris 07:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Images 

message: Did I see this in Extreme Engineering? --  Boogster  Go!  17:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubtful that this would be the first "concrete-steel composite arch bridge" in the U.S.  Most concrete bridges have been built/reinforced with steel (rebar, usually) and have been for years...and I would think that concrete bridges with arches have been built before.  However, I do recall hearing that it would be something like the largest or tallest bridge of this type (though I can't source that at the moment). --Ljthefro (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: It is a "so-called concrete-steel composite arch bridge", an awkward piece of civil-engineering jargon, because all concrete-arch bridges are made of composities of steel & concrete.74.163.36.177 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect there's a difference between "reinforced" and "composite". - Denimadept (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text: No - look up the phrase composite material and you will see. Composites are composed of two or more materials that are not chemically combined with each other. So, steel-reinforced concrete is a composite material, by definition.74.163.36.177 (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Just because something is the first one to be built in the United States doesn't mean that they don't have extensive experience with them in places like Europe, Africa, China, South America, and so forth. In the United States and Japan, we have massive experience with steel bridges, and lots of steel available, and so we have had less reason to search for supposedly cheaper methods of construction.74.163.36.177 (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

text: It is called a composite bridge because it uses concrete construction in the arch and columns, where it is best suited for compression loads, and steel construction for the roadway deck, where the loads are more in tension and the system benefits from reduced weight and easier installation. -Tim D. (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait a Minute. 

message: There have recently been some back and forth naming controversies in this article.  This article is about and a direct result of the bridge, the bridge is a major component of the overall Hoover Dam Bypass Project.  The project consists of an approach road on each side of the river and a bridge over the river.  The official name of the bridge has been chosen and decided on by both the states of Nevada and Arizona and it is very offical and final.  Please visit the official project website for any further clarifications on this issue.
(Cygnusloop99 (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took a look at that site, and I don't see the proper name there on a quick search.  Can you point directly to it, please? - Denimadept (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

text: If you look through this section, all of the more recent references refer to the bridge by the Mike-Pat name.  They have never updated most of the site since day one but when they put up new stuff they use the new name.  (Cygnusloop99 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Important Naming Info

message: It looks to me as if the milestones would be better presented as a table, rather than a string of very short paragraphs. I'll wait for any comments before doing it... Mirokado (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea. Cygnusloop99 (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. Done that. Mirokado (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milestones better as table? 

message: The references will need to be completed for the good article review (and indeed anyway). I will do that over the weekend (6-7 Nov) unless someone else really wants to instead. Mirokado (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: * as written, the links did not work (incorrect id in the cite tag)
* using raw html in the wiki source is not ideal
* html cite tag by default renders all its contents italic: the Cite template defeats this but it is conceptually untidy
* with a corrected id, the target was not highlighted as implemented by the standard mechanism
* the references should refer to both authors, not just the first
All the above corrected by using the Harvard reference system support in the citation template family
* no need for publisher information if ISSN is given, recommendation is to remove unused template parameters to avoid clutter
Tidied up the citation. – Mirokado (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixing Illia & Cho (2009)

message: I've now finished the systematic updates to the current references, although further work is still necessary. This took a lot longer than I had expected. Apart from any inexperience on my part it is clear that not enough effort has gone into providing reasonably complete references during the editing of this article (also by myself of course!) While I do not want to impose any manic tyranny, I expect subsequent references to be reasonably complete when added, and I will be prepared to remove newly-added or substantially updated material which lacks references as required for GA. If you do not have time to complete the references, leave the edit until you do have time. – Mirokado (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Systematic updates completed

message: I don't think we can accept a value of 890 feet for the height of the roadway above the river. The Bridge Facts plaque on the bridge itself states 880 feet and it going to be difficult to argue with that, but I have yet to find a "reliable" reference that states 880 feet. The current HDB-faq reference states "approx. 900 feet".
The same plaque also quotes the bridge length as 1905 feet, so we should try to find a good reference for that too.
I have also not yet found a reference for the value of 840 feet which appears in the article. That appears to refer to the height of the arch above the river, but we must remove this in the absence of a reference.
(You can see a photo of the plaque in this blog entry, but I imagine that will not be acceptable as a reference.) – Mirokado (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Stupid question - Why is information on listed on the plaque at the bridge not official?  And if it is not than what is? Cygnusloop99 (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge dimensions 

message: I have moved the information from the milestones table into the article text, as recommended in the GA review. This provides better flexibility for placing pictures so I reorganised them at the same time. This was rather a lot for one edit, I appreciate, but there was no tidy intermediate stage. Criteria for the pictures were:
* chronological order within the article text
* illustrate the text alongside which they are embedded
* each taken from a slightly different viewpoint
* alternate right-left through the article
Comments and/or improvements welcome, of course. Mirokado (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milestones moved into article text 

message: What's for the wikilink ("see also") to Swiss architect Maillart and from him ("see also") to the bridge?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.44.251 (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with the link that's there? - Denimadept (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The link was OK, but lacked context. I have updated the article a bit. --Mirokado (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maillart 

message: Who paid for the Construction cost? The article repeat the sum of $240 million for the project and $114 million for the bridge, but does not specify who funded the project. אביהו (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget question 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mike O'Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080110203215/http://www.canamex.org/fed_def.asp to http://www.canamex.org/fed_def.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528060416/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/crossingguide.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/crossingguide.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.hooverdambypass.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061111103742/http://www.eswp.com/PDF/PE_summer05_16-18.pdf to http://www.eswp.com/PDF/PE_summer05_16-18.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Many links are dead now. However when I go to the section where the ref is and open it up to see if I can find an updated url for a newspaper article, it is a ref name only, ending with />. The ref is in the References list just once, for example Hansen October 9, 2010, which needs a new url and I found the article at the new one here. Where is the full cite hidden? I cannot mark dead link or update the link if I cannot find the full citation somewhere. What new thing must I learn to find the full citations? Thanks for any help. - - Prairieplant (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give an example. - Denimadept (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Okay, I see you did.  I'm seeing the citation in the References section. - Denimadept (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are full citations hidden?