Talk:Jubilee Bridge (Tay)

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kimikel talk 01:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Jubilee Bridge over the River Tay, looking downstream (south)

... that the course of the River Tay was diverted to allow construction of the Jubilee Bridge (pictured)?

Source: https://www.scottishroadsarchive.org/a9 North of here, the course of the River Tay was diverted to allow the new road to run along the river valley.

ALT1: ... that the construction of the Jubilee Bridge (pictured) over the River Tay was featured in the reconstruction of the A9 documentary? Source: https://movingimage.nls.uk/film/1962 (its a film)
Reviewed:

Created by Coldupnorth (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

JuniperChill (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

All good except: (1) some portions of the text lack citations; (2) there is some copied text per Earwig's tool: [1]; and (3) the last sentence of the lead doesn't have a period. Please add cites, rewrite the copyvio in your own words, and fix the missing period. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I also don't find ALT1 to be interesting enough. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will be off until 10am UK/UTC time Monday since I may not edit on Sunday's and will also be off that day. Also pinging Coldupnorth. Otherwise, I should be able to make those improvements on Monday. It's already 22:42 and I need to sleep. The hot weather is already making it harder. JuniperChill (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have rewritten text to remove copyvio, added full stop and added references. Thanks. Coldupnorth (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was about to make the requested changes, but it seems like they have been done. Thank you Coldupnorth for this. To be fair, While I didn't start this article, I made some significant changes to it. I don't really edit on Sunday's as often as other days. JuniperChill (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
voorts, since these changes were made a week ago by the creator, what do you think? JuniperChill (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Voorts: Comments on the above? Z1720 (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @JuniperChill, Coldupnorth, and Z1720: This sentence lacks a citation: "The project (and therefore the second bridge) was supposed to be complete in 2025, but delays to the project meant that the doubled bridge will be finished by 2032 instead with the project as a whole in 2035." Earwig still shows some coypvio. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I saw a comment which said in the source editor "see main A9 dualling project for verification", so does that actually count (ie, users can verify the information by reading the A9 dualling project article) or it has to be a proper inline citation? I also think 12% copyvio is alright because its only like 1-2 paragraphs out of, like 30. JuniperChill (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JuniperChill: It needs its own inline citation. 1-2 paragraphs of copyvio is still too much and the information should be summarised and synthesized in the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done both. Should be alright now. JuniperChill (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts and Z1720: Pinging per above comment. diff. JuniperChill (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed unless Voorts returns. Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the delay. Looks good now. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]