Talk:Narrows Bridge (Perth)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "Lief Ott Nielsen" does not sound like a common Danish name. Should it not be "Leif Otto Nielsen" or "Leif Otte" or the like? I cannot for the life of me find out how many lanes the first bridge has. "It was hoped at this stage that the cost of the bridge would be paid off within 12 months." This does not quite make sense to me: was there a toll on the bridge, or was this the time needed by the authorities to pay for the debt to build the bridge, and did it actually take 12 months? I have performed a small copyedit.

   He is credited on the bridge's foundation plate thing as "Leif Ott Nilsen" (see photo). It could well be that he's this guy, but there's also this listing supporting the weird spelling. I've corrected the spelling of "Leif" anyway, the "Lief" was a spelling error of mine. - Mark 02:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

   If the source says so, we gotta believe it; perhaps he just had a funny name. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

   The original bridge was designed to have six traffic lanes. By the time they got around to building the duplicate, they had squeezed seven lanes onto it by making the lanes narrower than is really safe. Then when they built the new bridge they shifted it back to six lanes, including a bus lane, same as the new bridge. Then when they built the railway they replaced the bus lane with the railway line. So it's now carrying five road lanes and a train track. I've added a reference for the number of road lanes over the years. - Mark 02:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

   There was never a toll on the bridge. The line in question was about repaying debt, I have modified it to reflect this. However, I can't find any reference to whether this was in fact paid off, and I'm not sure I would be able to without trawling through years worth of newspaper on microfilm. Would the article be better off without this incomplete information? - Mark 02:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

   It was mainly the debt/toll issue I was concerned about. I think it is okay to leave it in, even if it is only an estimate. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The top-rigth image is missing a caption. Remember to not force the image size on thumbs.

   I'm not sure what you are referring to here in relation to the caption. The only image that didn't have a caption was the extra-wide one centred at the foot of the article, which was mostly decorative. I have put a caption on it anyway (I have forced the image size on this thumb because the dimensions of the image are such that it is necessary. - Mark 02:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

   Curiously, the caption has appeared. I believe the problem was that it was prior to my copyedit the image was not marked as "thumb", and therefore did not display the caption. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I have placed the article on hold. A caption and resolving the issues under 1a) will turn it into a good article. Do not hesitate if there are any questions or comments. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

   A very thorough and well written article that covers all aspects of the bridge well. Congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)