Talk:Hulme Arch Bridge

Hulme Arch Bridge 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
April 16, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 6, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Hulme Arch Bridge in Manchester (pictured) follows the design of the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, Missouri, and rejoins two halves of a road that was sundered in 1969?

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

DYK?[edit]

Surely a candidate for DYK? --Jza84 | Talk 11:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already a candidate; see here. :) Mike Peel (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

It is reasonably well written:
Not Yet
1. 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.
2. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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} 20:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]