Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Clackline Bridge

Clackline Bridge

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the TFAR nomination of the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add   to the top of the discussion and   at the bottom, then complete a new TFAR nom underneath.

The result was: scheduled for Today's featured article/August 30, 2014 by BencherliteTalk 09:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)



Clackline Bridge is a road bridge in Clackline, Western Australia, 77 km east of Perth, that carried Great Eastern Highway until 2008. It is the only bridge in Western Australia to have spanned both a waterway and railway, the Clackline Brook and the former Eastern Railway alignment. The mainly timber bridge has a unique curved and sloped design, due to the difficult topography and the route of the former railway. The bridge was designed in 1934 to replace two dangerous rail crossings and a rudimentary water crossing. Construction began in January 1935, and the opening ceremony was held on 30 August 1935. However, the bridge was still a safety hazard, with increasing severity and numbers of accidents through the 1970s and 1980s. Planning for a highway bypass of Clackline and the Clackline Bridge began in the 1990s, and was constructed between January 2007 and February 2008. The local community had been concerned that the historic bridge would be lost, but it remains in use as part of the local road network, and has been listed on both the Northam Municipal Heritage Inventory and the Heritage Council of Western Australia's Register of Heritage Places.
 * Most recent similar article(s): Albert Bridge, London on 23 August 2013
 * Main editors: Evad37 &#91;talk]
 * Promoted: 2014
 * Reasons for nomination: 79th anniversary of opening
 * Support as nominator. Evad37 &#91;talk] 05:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment—might it not be a little nicer to wait until the 80th anniversary next year? Otherwise I'd have no objections to this running in 2014, but I think it might be nicer to have a round number anniversary.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While a round number might be a little nicer, I don't think 79/80 that much of a big deal (compared to say, 99/100) – and having a topic that hasn't had a TFA in about a year helps with main page diversity. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: Nice article.  No opinion as to timing, will defer to the collective wisdom. Now or later both Ok with me.   Montanabw (talk)  01:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Scheduling for this year - the 80th anniversary isn't much of a big deal in the grand scheme of things. BencherliteTalk 09:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)