Talk:Forth Bridge/GA1

GA Reassessment
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Forth Railway Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.


 * Why is this article called Forth Railway Bridge when the lead does not give that as one of the bridge's names?
 * Name changed back to Forth Bridge to reflect official name.


 * Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources.
 * Extraordinary claims in introduction are all referenced.


 * "The bridge is, even today, regarded as an engineering marvel." Who says so?
 * This claim is no longer in the article.


 * "Baker – "one of the most remarkable civil engineers Britain ever produced ...". All quotations need to be attributed.
 * Claim no longer in article.


 * "More than 55,000 tons of steel were used, as well as 18,122 m³ of granite ...". the article should be consistent about either presenting metric or imperial first, with a conversion to the other.
 * All values appear to have been converted.


 * "According to a 2004 New Civil Engineer report on contemporary maintenance ...". Needs to be cited.
 * No longer in article.


 * Four of the seven paragraphs in Construction are completely uncited. Where did the information come from? Similarly, the first and third paragraphs of Maintenance.
 * All paragraphs appear to have been cited.


 * Competition is too short to stand alone as a section. It also contains an external link. External links should be confined to an External links section.


 * Popular culture is a Trivia section. Whatever is important should be incorporated into the article body, and whatever is kept needs to be cited.


 * The Firth of Forth Road and Rail Bridges panorama need a proper summary, identifying the author.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As these issues remain outstanding, this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Issues appear to have been resolved. I will request a re-evaluation. Davidkinnen (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)