Talk:Southway Bridge

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Idaho / Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Idaho portal This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.

Warren Magnuson quote[edit]

User:SounderBruce - I see that you (again) removed this quote of Senator Warren Magnuson from the article (provided from CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE (page 17253) (PDF). June 3, 1974. p. 17253. Retrieved 2020-01-24.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)):

Mr. President, the need for a new Lewiston-Clarkston Bridge has been created by construction of the Federal Lower Granite Lock and Dam project on the Snake River. [...] Completion of the Lower Granite project in February 1975 will substantially raise the [Snake River] at [the cities of Lewiston and Clarkston]. Consequently, the drawbridge that was built in the 1930's and now serves as the only transportation link between the two cities will have to be raised far more frequently for vessel movement. That will be the case since the clearance under the bridge will be reduced from its present range of 26 to 45 feet to a range of 13 to 18 feet according to estimates supplied by the Corps of Engineers. That, in turn, is projected by local officials to create serious traffic congestion on both sides of the river since there are now more than 22,000 two-way vehicular trips over the bridge on an average day. Besides the adverse impact the projected congestion will have on the local economy and the inconvenience it will create for local residents who must commute daily between the two cities, it will also pose a direct threat to public safety since the only ambulance service available to Clarkston residents is headquartered across the river in Lewiston. [...] In summary, there is a clear and pressing need for a new bridge — as proposed by this bill — that will permit uninterrupted travel between the two cities despite the higher water level.

Your rationale from the change history appears to be "removing quote again because it adds no value". I'll concede that the much longer quotation that I put in on my January 24th version of the article was too long and overly-dominated the remaining prose, but I put in a lot of work of paring down the quotation to the most valuable portion. The portion that I quoted provides useful specifics not provided by the more general prose, and the article length does not appear to be a problem. What is the point of deleting the smaller quote? -- RobLa (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of this could be pared down to what the senators actually thought of the project, rather than regurgitating facts on the floor. The facts can merely be cited as they need to be with proper sources, rather than relying on the testimony of the senators, who aren't actively fact-checking mid-speech. The blockquote dominates the article and it's uninviting to the reader; when the basics of the bridge's construction aren't even covered, it's quite the unbalanced article. Sounder Bruce 06:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]