Talk:Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge

Upgrade to GA-class

I nominate this article to GA-class. Kevon Kevono 15:50, 26 April 2016 (PT)

Overruns and unnecessary expenses.

I am concerned the article does so little to emphasize the extremely inefficient use of taxpayer money on the bridge. What could have been done for a few hundred million -make the bridge safe in all but very extreme earthquakes- was done for many billions. The bridge has come t o be viewed by many as an example of fantastically wasteful spending.

I believe much can be written about the waste and the politics - the contractors who wanted a major product, the politicians who gave it toe them, as essentially kickbacks for their political support, and so on. This article should really highlight the scandal this project was.

With interest, there were estimates of the bridge costing $17B - I guess over 30 years - I would need to do more research - I realize this is not a proposed edit, but is someone going to revert me if I do all the research and make an edit detailing this - interest rates were higher when the money was borrowed.

I am just asking what people think of adding this topic in general.

That would be fine, as long as you follow Wikipedia's policies of No Original Research WP:NOR; All statements must be sourced from Reliable Sources WP:RS. (Like reputable newspapers: LATimes, SFChronicle, etc. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Who designed it?!

It is astonishing that an article on a structure with the importance and visibility of the Bridge would have no mention of who designed it! The aesthetic design of the Bridge was by Donald McDonald Architects in collaboration with Weidlinger Associates. The engineering work was done by T. Y. Lin International and the engineer of record was Moffitt & Nichol. Bricology (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

That info would be nice, but it needs to be sourced in Reliable Sources, WP:RS, not the sites of the companies themselves. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

For anything contentious, WP:RS certainly should be followed. But for a non-controversial matter such as who was the engineer-of-record on a structure, such information can be very difficult to find from publicly-accessible secondary sources. As it states in the lede at WP:RS: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations" (emphasis added). In the same article, under the heading "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources" it states "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred" (emphases added). So, to be clear, in the absence of publicly-accessible secondary sources, primary sources are acceptable when, as here, they are not likely to be challenged. The authorship of a significant bridge is highly relevant information for this article, but I could not find that information in secondary sources, so primary sources will have to suffice. Unless you are going to assert that the authorship of a bridge design, or its engineers, is disputed, there is no reason to hew to the strictest standards of WP:RS for this information. The article suffers more from the absence of that information than it does from its reliance upon primary sources for it. Bricology (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Still not an acceptable source; anyone can claim this, we need good sources. The National Park Service's Heritage Documentation Programs may be a source for this information, which would be a good Reliable Source for this type of information. I'm not familiar with how to search that, otherwise I would look myself. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Avatar317@Bricology Per [1], the joint venture of T. Y. Lin International and Moffitt & Nichol was selected to develop the two final designs to the 30% stage, they completed the unused cable-stay option themselves, and subcontracted to Weidlinger to develop the self-anchored-suspension option that ended up being selected. Reading further in that document, further design revisions were jointly done by Caltrans and the TYLin/M&N joint venture. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

That is a good source, thanks for finding that! We can use that rather than the engineering companies' websites to source that info, which I agree would be good to have in the article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

"Still not an acceptable source; anyone can claim this..."

Nonsense. I just quoted the authority on the matter, and it explicitly says that "specific facts may be taken from primary sources". You negate your credibility by claiming the opposite to be true. Bricology (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)