Template:Did you know nominations/Cambus O' May bridge
- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Cambus O' May bridge
.jpg)
Cambus O' May bridge
- ... that after the Cambus O' May bridge (pictured) was damaged by Storm Frank in December 2015 it took more than five years to repair and reopen? "The iconic Cambus O' May suspension bridge which was severely damaged by floods during Storm Frank at the end of 2015 has reopened following major repair works." from: Porter, David (1 April 2021). "Iconic north-east suspension bridge reopens after major repair works". Grampian Online. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
- ALT1:... that Prince Charles donated money to help repair the Cambus O' May bridge (pictured) after it was badly damaged by Storm Frank in 2015?"the project received funding the Ballater Royal Deeside group, as well as a personal donation by Prince Charles in 2019." from: Beattie, Kieran (13 April 2021). "Anger as council revamps flood-battered bridge - but leaves turnstile that makes wheelchair access 'impossible'". Press and Journal. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 06:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC).
- Under review. Bermicourt (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
- One source says it took over six years to repair and reopen, so the main hook could happily state this.
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
A nice, rounded little article that is new enough, long enough and well cited. Sources are taken in good faith and an assumption made that it is plagiarism free. That is certainly the case with the accessible sources. The hook is backed up and the image is clear and appropriately licensed. If we can clear up the length of time taken to repair the bridge, the main hook is fine. ALT1 is also good to go and, if I had to vote, I'd probably run with that one. Bermicourt (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Bermicourt, thanks for your review. Whichever source it is that states six years must be wrong. The storm was in December 2015 so it has not yet been six years, the bridge definitely reopened in April 2021 so around 5 and a third years. Is suspect it's a lazy subtraction of 2021 minus 2015 - Dumelow (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Of course, that makes entire sense. In which case I reckon this is GTG. Bermicourt (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Bermicourt, thanks for your review. Whichever source it is that states six years must be wrong. The storm was in December 2015 so it has not yet been six years, the bridge definitely reopened in April 2021 so around 5 and a third years. Is suspect it's a lazy subtraction of 2021 minus 2015 - Dumelow (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
