Talk:Narrows Bridge (Perth)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Narrows Bridge (Perth) 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 5, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 2, 2008.

Did these bridges design themselves?[edit]

Congratulations to Mark on a major rework of this article, with lots (too much?) detail. However the names of the designers of the 2nd and 3rd bridges have been deleted. Did they design themselves? Paul Fisher (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I just couldn't find decent sources for a few of the statements that were in the article prior to my update, so I thought I'd leave them out pending another visit to the Battye Library when I can hopefully find it written somewhere. Nothing on Factiva shows up. I've added the few web references I could find, but they aren't particularly reliable. - Mark 15:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Mark. I'd regard the Wyche Consulting paper by Noel Wenham as reliable - he was on the Package E design team (as was I). I'll try to dig up a GHD reference as well. Paul Fisher (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC) (Under "Infrastructure & Building")
Strange (and disappointing) that there isn't much written up on this very interesting project. Paul Fisher (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good article[edit]

I was considering nominating this as a Good article, per the 200 GA drive for WP:AUS. The aricle seems to meet the criteria as far as I can see. Are there any suggestions for improvement before I do so? –Moondyne 03:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Narrows Bridge (Perth)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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:
    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)

Congratulations and thank you...[edit] all who participated in getting this up to Good Article status. Mark did a huge re-write a couple of months back which was no doubt a major factor. At the time I thought he'd put in too much detail, but I'm happy to be proved wrong. Paul Fisher (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Harold Boas - timing[edit]

Narrows Bridge (Perth)#First road bridge: 1959 says:

Site investigations for the bridge began in August 1954. The bridge was proposed for The Narrows site by the Town Planning Commission under the chairmanship of Harold Boas.

Boas (assuming that the link is correct) was only chairman until 1942, so the mention of him here looks to be out of place chronologically. Should we change it to:

Site investigations for the bridge began in August 1954. The bridge was proposed for The Narrows site

had been proposed by the Town Planning Commission under the chairmanship of Harold Boas in 19xx.

Do we know when it was proposed? Perhaps the first sentence (investigations began in 1954) should be moved later into the paragraph? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I found this 11 August 1954 announcement that "The State Cabinet has decided on preliminary work being done for the eventual construction of a bridge over the Swan River at the Narrows, which may help. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)