Talk:Northern Spire Bridge

Northern Spire Bridge was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 9, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

Bridges and Tunnels Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

North East England Low‑importance

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England 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.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the article is that it lacks a lead and sections. Please make a short summary of the whole article at the top, and create at least two section (for instance "history" and "specification"). For instance, all the information in the infobox should be presented in prose (length,

Another issue is that the article describes a future event. The main concern is violating WP:CRYSTAL, i.e. speculation, and that a "whole" needs to be presented. For a bridge, by construction start sufficient information will definitively be available, but prior to that, I reserve the right to be a bit cynical in my interpretation of the GA criteria. For instance, you can look at Skarnsund Bridge for an example of a GA bridge article (somewhat similar to the New Wear Bridge, longer but narrower). Follo Line is an example of a GA-worthy article about future infrastructure.

Some other comments:

~~Avoid wikilinking dates~~
~~"Cable Stay Bridge" (in infobox) is not capitalized, similarly "Dual Carriage Way, Pedestrian,Cycling".~~
The prose does not mention the number of lanes (it only states that it is a dual carriage way, which is not sufficient)
Will there be separate bicycle and pedestrian lanes?
~~No need to wikilink common terms like meter and foot.~~
~~The article lists the national and regional government grants, but fails to say how much the local government pays, and even more important, the total cost.~~
There is no image. I presume there are engineering drawings or artist's impressions, and these could be used (especially if used in public documents) under fair use rationales.
I believe "Compulsory Purchase of Land and New Rights" and "Side Roads Orders and Bridge Schemes" should not be capitalized, since they are common nouns (there are multiple of them). The "Highways Act 1980" should be in italics.
Could you add the coordinates (using {{coord}}) please. If you don't know how to get the coordinates, ask and I will find the instructions somewhere.
~~What route will the bridge be on?~~
I would like to see (perhaps under history) more on the background for the need of a bridge (a few more words on the redevelopment in the area, current solutions (does it replace another bridge, supplement one or replace a ferry?). Also, are there any figures on numbers of cars in the area, predictions (obviously fairly high numbers, since it will have four lanes).
As a major public investment, there will probably have been done impact assessments by the local government or someone else. Could you add a paragraph on the expected impact (on the economy, transport needs, urban development). this has yet to be done
Has there been any group speak up against the bridge (for instance, if it is in a delta, it could breach wilderness), public transport groups who would rather see an extension to the metro, or architects who think it is ugly (I'm just guessing, these are the typical people who are opposed to bridges).
Please describe the difference between the iconic and basic bridge. What are the feature differences? Is there a cost difference? How on earth do the local politicians back up that a "nicer" bridge design will create jobs? (sounds like BS to me)
What year does the bridge plan to open?
~~Please merge the one-sentence paragraphs at the end into suitable paragraph lengths.~~

I am placing the article on hold. There is a bit more work that needs to be done, after which I can look it over again. The references look good, though.

Thank you for your help, I will get to work on this right away. However it may take some time for me to fulfill all of this as I will need to conduct extra research on the bridge if I am to add some of the points you are requesting.

However in your concern to wikilinking the units in the info box, that cannot be helped as it has been done automatically through a unit conversion template. Routerone (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is because you have asked the conversion template to link ;) By removing |lk=on from the template, it will by default not wikilink. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been on hold for three weeks now, without any work for more than two weeks. Unless the issues above are addressed within a few days, I will fail the article due to inactivity. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing the article due to inactivity and thus lack of complying to the GA criteria. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image http://i316.photobucket.com/albums/mm322/sterock85/bridgepg5.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.174.67 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Wear bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110608051856/http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/showFeature.asp?Feature=152 to http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/showFeature.asp?Feature=152

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]