Template:Did you know nominations/Galcerán 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 The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Galcerán Bridge
... that Galcerán Bridge, the third bridge to cross the Barranco de Santos, was opened in 1928 during Miguel Primo de Rivera's visit to Tenerife?
- Reviewed: Autogenous pressurization
Created by Mike Peel (talk). Self-nominated at 19:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC).
Long enough, new enough, adequately referenced, hook is referenced, no copyvios found, QPQ done. Rlendog (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but the hook isn't going to be so interesting to non-Spaniards. I would like to know if you have any other details to add to the article besides its construction specifics; this would help create a more interesting hook. Unfortunately, the only non-construction detail right now is the death of a worker. Yoninah (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I've added what I can to the article already. Why wouldn't it be of interest to non-Spaniards? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Because it sounds like a news item in a Spanish paper. If you don't know who this person or place is, why would you click on it? Yoninah (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- The mention of Miguel Primo de Rivera does not make it clear that this is the Spanish head of government (Prime Minister) visiting the Canary Islands, a distant part of Spain, rather than on the Spanish mainland. I'm a bit astonished that while Tenerife (one of the islands) is mentioned by name, there is no other indication that the bridge is in the Canary Islands. One thing that struck me as of possible interest was that the bridge was controversial with the populace because they (incorrectly) thought the bridge construction (or constructed bridge?) would somehow kill (shut down?) the newly built football stadium. Unfortunately, the source doesn't seem to have much in the way of useful detail, if Google translate is reasonably accurate, but perhaps enough to for hook? (If so, then that part of the text would need updating to support such a hook.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset and Yoninah: Canary Islands was mentioned in the infobox when I proposed the DYK, but it was subsequently removed by another editor; I've added it to the lead instead. I couldn't make complete sense of the affect the bridge was supposed to have on the football stadium, hence why I just mentioned a controversy related to it. Perhaps the Primo de Rivera angle is the way to go - see the article on him, possibly 'promoting infrastructure' in particular. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
How about:
- ALT1 ... that the railings on Santa Cruz de Tenerife's Galcerán Bridge were replaced in 1954 to reduce the number of suicides?
I can't think of anything else. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think that could work, but I was wondering about the actual facts—was the 0.9 meters an added railing on top of the old 1.0 meter one, as seems to be implied by the source, or was the old meter-high railing replaced with a new parapet plus a shorter 0.9 meter railing? To be effective, it would have had to be a very tall parapet. Mike Peel, do you know? It would help to clarify this in the paragraph if we go with this hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- My understanding from the reference is that old railings were replaced with new ones on top of a new parapet, I think they are the same ones that are currently on the bridge, see File:Puente galceran.jpg for example. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think that could work, but I was wondering about the actual facts—was the 0.9 meters an added railing on top of the old 1.0 meter one, as seems to be implied by the source, or was the old meter-high railing replaced with a new parapet plus a shorter 0.9 meter railing? To be effective, it would have had to be a very tall parapet. Mike Peel, do you know? It would help to clarify this in the paragraph if we go with this hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
