Talk:Sotra Bridge

Sotra 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
Date	Process	Result
March 2, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

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?

Norway

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway 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.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Bridges and Tunnels Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

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.
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.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Thorough, without unneccessary detail.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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
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

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]