Talk:Sotra Bridge

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Martin of Sheffield in topic Norwegian Public Roads Administration 1989
Good articleSotra 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
DateProcessResult
March 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 23, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that, when it opened in 1971, the Sotra Bridge was the longest suspension bridge in Norway?

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sotra Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    I made a number of copy-edits.[2] I feel that more could be done, especially if you plan to take this article further. However, I feel it now meets the standards.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    I assume good faith for sources, which my lack of knowledge of Norwegian means I cannot examine thoroughly. I believe that the sources are reliable and I find on evidence of original research. The article is adequately referenced.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Thorough, without unneccessary detail.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    Images check out
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    OK, this article meets the standards for listing sufficiently and so I am happy to list it. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for taking the time to review the article and for the copyedit :) Arsenikk (talk) 07:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Norwegian Public Roads Administration 1989

edit

Can someone who knows the subject please sort out the above reference? Its been a referencing error for over 10 years now! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply