# Talk:Hulme Arch Bridge

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)

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)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
It is reasonably well written:
Not Yet
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.
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.
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass no problems there.
It is broad in its coverage:
Not Yet the Bridge needs a history section to cover major events relating to it.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass No problems there.
It is stable:
Not Yet once the above issues are resolved, this should be fine.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass
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)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hulme Arch 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 https://web.archive.org/20060323201013/http://www.arup.com/europe/project.cfm?pageid=190 to http://www.arup.com/europe/project.cfm?pageid=190
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071016234216/http://www.arup.com/bridges/project.cfm?pageid=2700 to http://www.arup.com/bridges/project.cfm?pageid=2700
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)