Talk:Alconétar Bridge

message: Is this the same bridge as at Alcántara Bridge?  It sounds similar. - Denimadept (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is definitely not, see the discussion page of Alcántara Bridge for details.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication? 

message: I found this a little confusing. The last paragraph of "Layout and road access" deals with the earliest history of the bridge and goes some way to explaining its presence. Why not move this to the beginning of the "History" section? Haploidavey (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do that, no problem. That would make sense. But as it is now it makes just as much sense, because this paragraph which deals with the road access fits just as well into the section on the location.  Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I entirely agree that the sequence makes sense, but the first para offers current location and approaches. The remainder deals with matters in classical history... which is, y'know, history. Haploidavey (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article layout 

message: This interesting article is based largely on the well-documented German Wikipedia article as you have stated at the bottom of the page. While we are first and foremost in the field of architecture, I think the article would benefit from the following:
* more information, preferably with map or diagrams, of the precise location of the bridge (possibly before and after it was moved);
* details (if available) of how the route - and therefore the bridge - were used over the centuries;
* whether architecturally similar bridges exist in the region (and perhaps elsewhere);
* the type of stone used and where it was quarried.
It might also be interesting to hear whether the bridge is considered to be a site of historical interest today and, if so, what measures have been taken to encourage interest.
Spanish sources such as  suggest that originally the bridge could have had 16 arches. This does not appear to be documented in the article. One source even talks of two separate bridges, see , only one of them being called Mantible.
There are also a number of historical sources which may be of interest. For example, Baugean, Jean Jérôme 1764-1819, Laborde, Alexandre de 1774-1842, Voyage pittoresque et historique de l'Espagne. Liger S. XIX,  Gossard S.XIX, Didot, Pierre 1761-1853 imp. Ruinas del Puente de ALCONETA. Issued 1811.
All this is intended to be constructive. Hope I am not asking for too much. Ipigott (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input. To be honest, some things I am unable provide, other points have already been adressed in the article. Point by point:
*The precise present location is given by the coordinates at the top on the right. For its original position, I could not find any diagrams, other than the info given here (1st paragraph).
*The route, I believe, is best covered by the article Via de la Plata. There, I added a map of the itinerary. The other three bridges of the road are briefly addressed in the first section (2nd paragraph). Further information can be quickly accessed via the two links (González Limón and Gil Montes) in the section on sources.
*As for structurally similar bridges, I referred to the Limyra Bridge and the Ponte San Lorenzo (see construction). For a complete overview of Roman bridges with flattened arches, go to the bottom Category:Roman segmental arch bridges.
*It is granite ashlar as mentioned in the very last paragraph.
*I am trying to find out about whether the bridge has some kind of heritage status. Good point. It has a "monument" status. Info added. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for additional information 

message: I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. The full review against GA criteria can be found here.
The article is very good and may still benefit from further improvements as listed below. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Elekhh (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|GA]] nomination