Talk:Blue Bridge (Reed College)

message: For now, removing the following unsourced text:
The name refers to the blue lights which illuminate it at night.  The lights were originally purchased in 1998 by Rain Lynham, that year's signator for the college's annual end of year party, known as Renn Fayre, and were intended to simply be temporary replacements for the normal white lights. However,  they proved to be so popular that no one bothered to change them back. In 2004, students changed the blue lights to green for Renn Fayre. They were changed back to blue shortly thereafter. 
Before the Blue Bridge was built in 1992, access to the Cross Canyon dormitories was via the first cross-canyon bridge. The first cross canyon bridge was constructed in 1959. The unusual design of this bridge, the only one of its kind in the world, was the result of more than a year’s research by the architect and a plywood company. The bridge was supported by two cantilevers of prestressed plywood and covered with a thin canvas membrane.
A land bridge impounds Reed Lake several hundred feet to the west. An S-shaped bridge, constructed in 2008, traverses the lower Reed Canyon west of the land bridge.
--Another Believer (Talk) 00:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: * http://blogs.reed.edu/reed_magazine/2012/04/blue-like-jazz-film-screening.html
* http://www.reedquest.org/2012/04/blue-like-jazz-sees-reed-through-a-glass-darkly/
* http://www.reed.edu/canyon/reso/docs/2010_ecosystem_services/4.html
* reminder: 1991 caption: "View of the new bridge built across the canyon in 1991 to replace the Memorial Churchill cantilevered bridge"
* http://web.reed.edu/canyon/intr/history.html
* http://cdm.reed.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/reedhisttxt&CISOPTR=19468&REC=14 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) 
* http://lumald.com/PDFs/portfolio/luma-portfolio-reed-college-bridge.pdf Pedestrian Bridge
--Another Believer (Talk) 21:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: It would be great if this article included an illustration of the Arthur M. Churchill Memorial Bridge, if anyone has the ability to provide one. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a couple promising leads, I'll see if I can dig something up. Feel free to pin me if you don't hear back in a week or two. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just offering a  reminder, just in case! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Camera}} Image request: Arthur M. Churchill Memorial Bridge 

message: It's great to see the improvement in this article over the years. I can't take on this GA review, as I'm too close to the subject; but I want to express my perspective for consideration by whoever does take it on.
In my view, adequate sourcing to bring this article to GA does not exist. This is not the fault of those improving the article, of course; but it's a simple fact about many topics covered on Wikipedia that they can't get to GA status due to lack of sources.
In this case, almost every source cited is published by Reed College itself. These are sufficient to establish notability, but not sufficient to satisfy criterion 3a ("it addresses the main aspects of the topic"). If we don't have a variety of sources focused on the subject of the article, it's impossible for us to assess what its "main aspects" are. I feel we would do our readers a disservice by putting a stamp on the article that asserts that we've addressed the "main aspects" when we have no real basis for determining what those aspects are.
Independent of Reed publications, we have:
* An industry award, whose significance is unknown, but probably not great
* Shown in two films, which did not treat the bridge as a central subject
* Mentioned in passing (in connection with one of the films) in an independent newspaper.
The Good Article designation is an important one. In my view it should not be applied in cases where a lack of sources prevents the creation of a truly comprehensive and informative article. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely.  Well said, Pete. – SJ Morg (talk) 06:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries, I removed the GA nomination. I thought institutional sources and Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership's "Schematic Design Submittal" were sufficient, but you two disagree, and that's totally fine! Hopefully a few more sources in the future will allow this article to be promoted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination comment