Talk:Hulme Arch Bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Hulme Arch Bridge has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on April 5, 2008.
April 16, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
North West England Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greater Manchester , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Greater Manchester-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography . If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the Greater Manchester WikiProject.
Thumb
 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges, a WikiProject which aims to expand coverage of bridges on Wikipedia. Please feel free to join us.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] DYK?

Surely a candidate for DYK? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already a candidate; see here. :) Mike Peel (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of things

Some of the distances and measurements would benefit from using Template:convert.

Also, would it be possible to find an alternative source for citation 2? www.manchester2002-uk.com was deemed unreliable by WP:GM sometime back. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the convert template to some of the sizes, such that they now give both meters and feet. Please let me know if they need adding anywhere else. I've also removed the manchester2002-uk reference, as well as the sentence that it was referencing. I was a bit doubtful about the bridge being one of the first of modern times anyway, as it depends on your definition of "modern times". I'd count the Mancunion Way as a modern bridge, even though it's ~ 50 years old... Relying on a tertiary source for that probably isn't a good plan. Mike Peel (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    Not Yet
    1. The Lead section should summarize the entire article in a few sentences/paragraphs. General infroation about the entire article should be generally addressed in it.
    2. It appears that the article needs a "history" section. The lead should not have references in it, so consider moving some of the more detailed parts of the Bridge's history into the new section; the lead should only contain general ideas, not the more spefic details.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Pass no problems there.
  3. It is broad in its coverage:
    Not Yet the Bridge needs a history section to cover major events relating to it.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Pass No problems there.
  5. It is stable:
    Not Yet once the above issues are resolved, this should be fine.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    Pass
  7. Overall:
    On Hold The article needs a little more work, but it is well on its way to GA. -Ed! (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've given the article another look and it seems to meet the points I addressed well. Good work! -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)