Talk:Northern Spire Bridge/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk)  23:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with the article is that it lacks a lead and sections. Please make a short summary of the whole article at the top, and create at least two section (for instance "history" and "specification"). For instance, all the information in the infobox should be presented in prose (length,

Another issue is that the article describes a future event. The main concern is violating WP:CRYSTAL, i.e. speculation, and that a "whole" needs to be presented. For a bridge, by construction start sufficient information will definitively be available, but prior to that, I reserve the right to be a bit cynical in my interpretation of the GA criteria. For instance, you can look at Skarnsund Bridge for an example of a GA bridge article (somewhat similar to the New Wear Bridge, longer but narrower). Follo Line is an example of a GA-worthy article about future infrastructure.

Some other comments:
 * Avoid wikilinking dates
 * "Cable Stay Bridge" (in infobox) is not capitalized, similarly "Dual Carriage Way, Pedestrian,Cycling".
 * The prose does not mention the number of lanes (it only states that it is a dual carriage way, which is not sufficient)
 * Will there be separate bicycle and pedestrian lanes?
 * No need to wikilink common terms like meter and foot.
 * The article lists the national and regional government grants, but fails to say how much the local government pays, and even more important, the total cost.
 * There is no image. I presume there are engineering drawings or artist's impressions, and these could be used (especially if used in public documents) under fair use rationales.
 * I believe "Compulsory Purchase of Land and New Rights" and "Side Roads Orders and Bridge Schemes" should not be capitalized, since they are common nouns (there are multiple of them). The "Highways Act 1980" should be in italics.
 * Could you add the coordinates (using coord) please. If you don't know how to get the coordinates, ask and I will find the instructions somewhere.
 * What route will the bridge be on?
 * I would like to see (perhaps under history) more on the background for the need of a bridge (a few more words on the redevelopment in the area, current solutions (does it replace another bridge, supplement one or replace a ferry?). Also, are there any figures on numbers of cars in the area, predictions (obviously fairly high numbers, since it will have four lanes).
 * As a major public investment, there will probably have been done impact assessments by the local government or someone else. Could you add a paragraph on the expected impact (on the economy, transport needs, urban development). this has yet to be done
 * Has there been any group speak up against the bridge (for instance, if it is in a delta, it could breach wilderness), public transport groups who would rather see an extension to the metro, or architects who think it is ugly (I'm just guessing, these are the typical people who are opposed to bridges).
 * Please describe the difference between the iconic and basic bridge. What are the feature differences? Is there a cost difference? How on earth do the local politicians back up that a "nicer" bridge design will create jobs? (sounds like BS to me)
 * What year does the bridge plan to open?
 * Please merge the one-sentence paragraphs at the end into suitable paragraph lengths.

I am placing the article on hold. There is a bit more work that needs to be done, after which I can look it over again. The references look good, though.

Thank you for your help, I will get to work on this right away. However it may take some time for me to fulfill all of this as I will need to conduct extra research on the bridge if I am to add some of the points you are requesting.
 * However in your concern to wikilinking the units in the info box, that cannot be helped as it has been done automatically through a unit conversion template. Routerone (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is because you have asked the conversion template to link ;) By removing  from the template, it will by default not wikilink. Arsenikk  (talk)  23:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has been on hold for three weeks now, without any work for more than two weeks. Unless the issues above are addressed within a few days, I will fail the article due to inactivity. Arsenikk (talk)  17:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am failing the article due to inactivity and thus lack of complying to the GA criteria. Arsenikk (talk)  17:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)