Template:Did you know nominations/Noefefan Bridge
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Noefefan Bridge
.jpg)
Noefefan Bridge
Noefefan Bridge
- ... that the Noefefan Bridge (pictured) in Oecusse, East Timor, was originally planned to be a truss bridge, but was constructed as an arch bridge
with three long arches? Source: Noefefan Bridge, Timor Leste". Waagner Biro Bridge Systems: "Original planned as a truss bridge, the design was modified following a suggestion by Waagner Biro Indonesia and now completed bridge was constructed. ... The bridge consists of 3 long arches, each 120 meter in length, and weighs approximately 2.000 tonnes."- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/75 Wall Street
- Comment: There is a photo of the bridge in the article, but I haven't included the photo with this nomination, as it is not a very good photo. If the hook is thought to be too long, then "with three long arches" can be deleted.
5x expanded by Bahnfrend (talk). Self-nominated at 13:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC).
This nomination needs a QPQ credit. Please see RfC on excessively late supply of QPQ credits, which agreed to a one-week timeline. I will complete the review when a QPQ is ready. Flibirigit (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Flibirigit: Sorry. I've made a number of DYK nominations recently, and lost track of the QPQs. I've now done a QPQ for this one. Another update: there is now a better picture in the infobox of this article, and that picture could be used with the hook if desired. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for completing a QPQ. I have added the images to this nomination. I will complete the review later today. Flibirigit (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Flibirigit: Sorry. I've made a number of DYK nominations recently, and lost track of the QPQs. I've now done a QPQ for this one. Another update: there is now a better picture in the infobox of this article, and that picture could be used with the hook if desired. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- ? - Neutral: - ?
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - ?
- Interesting:
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Article was expanded more than fivefold from February 8 to 11, and nominated in the same timeframe. Length is adequate. Images used in the article are freely licensed on the Commons. Both are clear at a low resolution and would enhance the hook. No plagiarism issues detected. QPQ requirement is now complete. There are many quotes used in the article which gives it a promotional tone. I question whether all of the quotes are necessary and if paraphrasing is a better choice. Sourcing is generally good, but citations are reuqired immediately at the end of any sentence with a direct quote. The tone of the article needs improvement as per MOS:IDIOM. Article needs to be copyedited to adhere to MOS:LQ. The hook is interesting, but would be best if shortened to omit "with three long arches". The corresponding citation for the hook is split into two sentences. Both of these sentences need a citation directly at the end to adhere to WP:DYKCRIT. Overall, the article is fair, but needs some work. Flibirigit (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Bahnfrend:, do you wish to continue with this nomination? If you're busy with other things please advise. Flibirigit (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the article as requested. I do not believe that it fails to conform with MOS:IDIOM, and I have made one change to comply with MOS:LQ. I have no difficulty with a shortening of the hook. I have added citations at the end of the sentences. As for the quotes, there are four sets of quotes and one sentence of paraphrasing. The first two of the sets of quotes are statements by politicians praising the bridge. As politicians often complain that their statements are taken out of context, I think they should be quoted rather than paraphrased. The next two sets of quotes, and the paraphrase, are generally critical of the development project of which the bridge is a part. I believe that they balance the politicians' statements, and that the article is therefore not promotional. I would regard the article as being similar to an article about a movie that quotes the director and producer praising their handiwork, and then quotes/paraphrases three critics expressing contrary views. Both the creator of the article and I believe that the second (right hand side) image is the better image. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- The section "The Tono bridge project" is promotional and violates WP:OVERQUOTING. The quotes by Alkatiri seem like they are trying to promote what he wants people to hear about himself, rather than be any objective statement about the bridge. I feel it goes against WP:PROMO. More constructive comments about the bridge would come from journalists and realiable sources, rather than any politician. Flibirigit (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have deleted the Alkatiri quote altogether. The only remaining substantial quote is by the President during his speech at the opening of the bridge. The other remaining quotes are only snippets, and are by various critics. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- The change looks better. Will follow-up on the review shortly. Flibirigit (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- The paragraph summarizing Australian author Lisa Palmer is unclear as to who said what. In the last paragraph of the "Background" section, I am confused by the statement, "certain of its powers". It seems like colloquial speak. A better phrase would be "some of its powers". The introductory paragraph is too short. It should contain at least one sentence summarizing the background, and at least one senction summarizing the impact and rationale of the The Tono bridge project. Flibirigit (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Flibirigit: Further changes now done. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I will look at the changes later today. Flibirigit (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
The nominated article now meets all sourcing requirements. Overquoting, tone and neutrality concerns have been improved. The hook is properly cited, interesting and verified. The nomination now meets all DYK criteria. Shortened version of ALT0 approved. Flibirigit (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I will look at the changes later today. Flibirigit (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Flibirigit: Further changes now done. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- The paragraph summarizing Australian author Lisa Palmer is unclear as to who said what. In the last paragraph of the "Background" section, I am confused by the statement, "certain of its powers". It seems like colloquial speak. A better phrase would be "some of its powers". The introductory paragraph is too short. It should contain at least one sentence summarizing the background, and at least one senction summarizing the impact and rationale of the The Tono bridge project. Flibirigit (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- The change looks better. Will follow-up on the review shortly. Flibirigit (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have deleted the Alkatiri quote altogether. The only remaining substantial quote is by the President during his speech at the opening of the bridge. The other remaining quotes are only snippets, and are by various critics. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- The section "The Tono bridge project" is promotional and violates WP:OVERQUOTING. The quotes by Alkatiri seem like they are trying to promote what he wants people to hear about himself, rather than be any objective statement about the bridge. I feel it goes against WP:PROMO. More constructive comments about the bridge would come from journalists and realiable sources, rather than any politician. Flibirigit (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the article as requested. I do not believe that it fails to conform with MOS:IDIOM, and I have made one change to comply with MOS:LQ. I have no difficulty with a shortening of the hook. I have added citations at the end of the sentences. As for the quotes, there are four sets of quotes and one sentence of paraphrasing. The first two of the sets of quotes are statements by politicians praising the bridge. As politicians often complain that their statements are taken out of context, I think they should be quoted rather than paraphrased. The next two sets of quotes, and the paraphrase, are generally critical of the development project of which the bridge is a part. I believe that they balance the politicians' statements, and that the article is therefore not promotional. I would regard the article as being similar to an article about a movie that quotes the director and producer praising their handiwork, and then quotes/paraphrases three critics expressing contrary views. Both the creator of the article and I believe that the second (right hand side) image is the better image. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
