Talk:Alconétar Bridge

Alconétar 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
January 13, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

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.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spain Mid‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Duplication?

Is this the same bridge as at Alcántara Bridge? It sounds similar. - Denimadept (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is definitely not, see the discussion page of Alcántara Bridge for details.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--AnTransit (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article layout

I found this a little confusing. The last paragraph of "Layout and road access" deals with the earliest history of the bridge and goes some way to explaining its presence. Why not move this to the beginning of the "History" section? Haploidavey (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that, no problem. That would make sense. But as it is now it makes just as much sense, because this paragraph which deals with the road access fits just as well into the section on the location. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree that the sequence makes sense, but the first para offers current location and approaches. The remainder deals with matters in classical history... which is, y'know, history. Haploidavey (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need for additional information

This interesting article is based largely on the well-documented German Wikipedia article as you have stated at the bottom of the page. While we are first and foremost in the field of architecture, I think the article would benefit from the following:

more information, preferably with map or diagrams, of the precise location of the bridge (possibly before and after it was moved);
details (if available) of how the route - and therefore the bridge - were used over the centuries;
whether architecturally similar bridges exist in the region (and perhaps elsewhere);
the type of stone used and where it was quarried.

It might also be interesting to hear whether the bridge is considered to be a site of historical interest today and, if so, what measures have been taken to encourage interest.

Spanish sources such as [1] suggest that originally the bridge could have had 16 arches. This does not appear to be documented in the article. One source even talks of two separate bridges, see [2], only one of them being called Mantible.

There are also a number of historical sources which may be of interest. For example, Baugean, Jean Jérôme 1764-1819, Laborde, Alexandre de 1774-1842, Voyage pittoresque et historique de l'Espagne. Liger S. XIX, Gossard S.XIX, Didot, Pierre 1761-1853 imp. Ruinas del Puente de ALCONETA. Issued 1811.

All this is intended to be constructive. Hope I am not asking for too much. Ipigott (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. To be honest, some things I am unable provide, other points have already been adressed in the article. Point by point:

The precise present location is given by the coordinates at the top on the right. For its original position, I could not find any diagrams, other than the info given here (1st paragraph).
The route, I believe, is best covered by the article Via de la Plata. There, I added a map of the itinerary. The other three bridges of the road are briefly addressed in the first section (2nd paragraph). Further information can be quickly accessed via the two links (González Limón and Gil Montes) in the section on sources.
As for structurally similar bridges, I referred to the Limyra Bridge and the Ponte San Lorenzo (see construction). For a complete overview of Roman bridges with flattened arches, go to the bottom Category:Roman segmental arch bridges.
It is granite ashlar as mentioned in the very last paragraph.
~~I am trying to find out about whether the bridge has some kind of heritage status. Good point.~~ It has a "monument" status. Info added. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It probably had 16 arches or 18 arches including the two floodways. I included that info in the infobox and the first paragraph of (see construction) for the figures. The other bridge you mention must be over the Almonte, referred to in passing in the article ("By contrast, few traces are left of the neighbouring ancient bridge over the river Almonte.").
I would love to have my hands on Voyage pittoresque et historique de l'Espagne, but the book is very rare and the only version I found only had a selection of engravings, unfortunately none of which showed this bridge. Kind regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Successful GA nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. The full review against GA criteria can be found here.

The article is very good and may still benefit from further improvements as listed below. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Elekhh (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Areas of possible improvement:

Expand information on heritage protection and conservation works, possibly in a separate section, as information becomes available;
Include a map within the article which provides more detailed information about the location of the bridge relative to the river, the Roman road, and important localities. This could be a derivative map of File:Hispania roads.svg or File:Spain topo.png or similar.
Improve the layout of the Recorded measurements table to better relate to the adjacent illustration and logical (horizontal) sequence of data.

Elekhh (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]