Talk:Forth Road Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former good articleForth Road Bridge was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 7, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 20, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
September 4, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
February 10, 2018Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 4, 2012, and September 4, 2014.
Current status: Delisted good article

Third

Hmm, I don't think it's a good idea to describe the proposed new bridge as the "third" [1], as things are a bit ambiguous. The trouble is that there's also a road bridge at Kincardine, and they're in the process of building a new road bridge beside it right now. So saying "a new forth road bridge" or "third forth bridge" can get one muddled. I'd suggest either "second road bridge at Queensferry" or "third bridge at Queensferry". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd disagree - I think people in the Lothians, Fife and Central pretty well associate "Forth Bridge"(s) with the ones at QF, and "Kincardine Bridges"(s) for the upstream ones. It'll confuse the tourists though - "third fourth bridge" ;) /wangi 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what I do think is confusing is saying "Second Forth Road Bridge" in the title, and then "third bridge" in the text - that needs to be consistent. Everyone else (i.e. the press) are just calling it the "new Forth Road Bridge"... /wangi 21:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tolls for bikes

Can I put a bit in saying little motorbikes get to cross for free :)

It's already there in the infobox, but put it in the body if you like. You can edit it freely, everyone can! Erath 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never even relised it was there- thanks :-) but what is the towns called on each side!!

Possible info addition?

I know one of the designers and some other people who worked on the bridge. Is there anything that anyone wants found out? I notice you are even missing one of the companies that worked on vital parts of it too! I'm happy to help if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.17.161 (talk • contribs)

Please jump in and edit the article - i've added some links to your talk page to help get you started. Thanks/wangi 11:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rowling Bridge

Rumors says some scottish MPs want it to be re-named for J. K. R. already. Cult of personailty at its best! BTW, You-Know-Who has a known penchant for bridge destruction so that may not be such a bright idea. 82.131.210.162 10:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously hope you are kidding! Kennedygr 09:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe then want to name the new bridge after her. With the FRB in its current state I surely wouldln't want it named after a person (unless I really disliked them). --82.69.159.142 (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Name it after a fictional antagonist. Maybe not
You-Know-Who but maybe Professor Moriarty? There's any number of baddies which could be used. How about failed politicians? Name it for Neville Chamberlain then replace it. - Denimadept (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

GA Reassessment

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

This article is being reviewed as part of the

GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2006, so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant.Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Overall sumary

WP:WIAGA
for criteria

A compreshensive wide-ranging article

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Some unreferenced speculation, with {citation} and {who}, flags removed during this re-assessment
    C. No original research:
    Some unreferenced speculation, with {citation} and {who}, flags removed during this re-assessment
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it
    neutral
    ?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
    fair use rationales
    :
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
    suitable captions
    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

This article retains its GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considerable opposition?

Of the replacement, the article says "There remains considerable opposition to the project"; but what evidence is there that this opposition is "considerable"? Has there been some opinion poll about the project, or some well-attended march or rally? Failing that, we should simply say that the SGP and the Forthright Alliance oppose it. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New crossing, new article

With the new crossing being confirmed and designed, and construction of the surrounding roads to allow movements to the new bridge already in progress - I propose a new article for the new crossing rather than cluttering up this article further. Any opposition? Matt-thepie (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a draft article on the FRC here. Contributions welcome. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New article now in place at
Forth Replacement Crossing. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers. —

Talk to my owner:Online 21:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]


Lots of odd dates and tenses

Much of this article was clearly written several years ago and speaks of things planned for the future that have probably happened some years ago. It needs someone familiar with the bridge to bring it up to date. Stub Mandrel (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due and undue weight

I suggest the article currently does not meet

WP:UNDUE as there is almost as much about the recent closure as there is about all the bridge's other attributes and history. It needs a good trim. There may be scope for a spin-out article. --John (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

I took a partial hack at it. It probably needs more. --John (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then you took the brush to other parts and claims to take stuff out under this banner, you need more than a day. --Crazyseiko (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)-[reply]
You still dislike this " Hind said "There can be no doubt that Transport Scotland were well aware of Feta board’s concerns about loss of key staff and the threat that this would have on the future management and maintenance of the bridge" Why? If this is going to be bother trying to FULLY explain the public inquire I think we should just put this into it own then. I'll give you, your due about getting rid of that pointless US accepted industry guidelines. --Crazyseiko (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

This article needs a good cleanup, as at the moment there is too much unsourced information, and prose in the future tense for things that happened 10 years ago. Now the Queensferry Crossing is open, a load more online sources will now cover recent history, and things (like the bridge itself) should be a bit more stable. I'll see what I can do (are you still working on this, John?) so we can avoid sending this article to GAR. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's in terrible shape. Let me see what I can do. John (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community reassessment

Forth Road Bridge

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: delisted Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article passed GA over 10 years ago, but was kept by an earlier reassessment in 2009. Since then, the importance and nature of the bridge has been changed out of all recognition, firstly due to structural problems, and then to its replacement with the

recentism issues, and it now looks lop-sided, as well as requiring sources in places. These issues have been brought up on the talk page, but not much work has been done, and to be honest if I can't see an obvious commitment to fixing myself, and nobody else does it, I think it's better to delist the article now, with the possibility of it regaining GA status via a fresh review sometime later, when the issues have been resolved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

As there have been no objections, and the main {{
refimprove}} tag is still there, I am delisting. If I get a chance, I will work on the article and renominate it for GA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Forth Road Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Forth Road Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forth_Road_Bridge&oldid=1205970114"