User:Whiteguru/Tickle Cock Bridge

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

'''Starts GA Reassessment. The reassessment will follow the same sections of the Article. ''' --Whiteguru (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Talk:Tickle Cock Bridge/GA2 Instructions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment



Observations

 * WP:NTRAN gives notability of bridges like so:

Bridges and tunnels
Bridges and tunnels are notable if they have been analyzed and discussed in multiple independent sources, discussing things such as their history and impact on a region. Simple inclusion on a map or atlas does not generally constitute sufficient discussion to provide a tunnel or bridge with notability.

 
 * Officially named bridges and tunnels are likely to be notable if they are important enough to be named.
 * All bridges or tunnels on which tolls are collected are likely to be notable.
 * Unnamed bridges and tunnels (such as those over creeks, streams, and small rivers) and highway overpasses are not likely to be notable.
 * Deletion outcomes for Geography gives:
 * Unless a structure is demonstrably historic, especially listed in the National Register of Historic Places or its non-US equivalent (like the Eiffel Tower), or otherwise serves an important or unusual function to a wide population (such as structures with rotating restaurants or publicly accessible observation decks) which is supported by multiple reliable independent sources, stub articles on structures are generally deleted including, for example, articles on utilitarian radio and television masts which are only referenced in the FCC database. Articles on structures have also sometimes been turned into redirects to a relevant list.
 * WP:GEOFEAT mentions Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG. Where their notability is unclear, they generally redirect to more general articles or to a named natural feature that prompted their creation, e.g., to an article about the notable road it carries or the notable obstacle it spans.



Other issues

 * WP:N stipulates, received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and are notable for that reason alone, the pre-event notability of the span notwithstanding. Secondly, WP:WEASEL is pertinent: it isn't enough to suggest that a bridge "may" be "significant," "may" be historic, "could" be derived etc. There must be reliable sources claiming that outright, inference and interpretation free.



Actions
Good Article status is kept. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE web and WP:BEFORE news run over page. News has 0 results; web gives quite the coverage in results.
 * Internet Archive bot run over page. All references linked to archived versions; no dead references found.
 * The key issue with this GA Reassessment is notability.
 * References examined, notability as given in WP:NTRAN is present.