Template:Did you know nominations/São Vicente Suspension 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

São Vicente Suspension Bridge

(

)

The suspension bridge in 1914

... that São Vicente Suspension Bridge (pictured), constructed 1911-14, was the first suspension bridge in Brazil, and its recent restoration was only the fifth restoration of a cable suspension bridge in the world?

Reviewed: Urchinwood Manor
Comment: An alternative picture is File:Ponte Pênsil de São Vicente 2017 020.jpg, with a caption of "The suspension bridge in 2017". It might be nice to show the historic image rather than my recent photo, though.

Created by Mike Peel (talk). Self-nominated at 00:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC).

My review:

New: Article created within 7 days of nom. Y
Long Enough: 3015 characters.Y
Within Policy: Article contains 6 Portuguese sources. While A Tribuna has an article in the Portuguese Wikipedia which establishes it as popular newspaper, and Santos e Região appears to be notable too, this source is a non-notable blog. Please can the nominator address the sourcing. Meanwhile, the article has a 1.0% chance of copyright violation according to Earwig's Copyvio Detector.Y
Hook: Fine. Long enough. Interesting. As far as I can tell, the notion that this is the "first suspension bridge in Brazil" is not indicated in the source after the passage that contains the assertion. Please address. Y
QPQ: DoneY
Image: Within public domain. Fine.Y

A few things to address.--Coin945 (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coin945: Thanks for the review! I was wondering whether the blog would be a problematic ref, even though it looks very well-researched, hence why I didn't include too much information from it. I've commented out the sentences that used it as a ref for now, and I'll find other sources for them before adding them back in.

Yeah, Id say that's probably best. If the info is true and in a "very well-researched" blog, it's likely the info is also in a notable source too. :D--Coin945 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

On the other point, [1] has a quote saying "Essa é a primeira ponte pênsil do País." (beginning of the third paragraph), which translates as "This is the first suspension bridge in the country.". The same quote is also at [2]. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ahh yes, you're right. I don't speak Portuguese so I was running the page through Google Translate and I didnt get that meaning straight away. Yep, all good to go. :D--Coin945 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick and painless!--Coin945 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coin945: Can we put this on hold for a short while, please? I've just come across another ref that says it's the third suspensions bridge in Brazil, and it looks like pt:Ponte Affonso Penna and pt:Ponte Pênsil Benjamin Constant at least are older, so I need to do a bit more research here. Apologies about this. I'll follow up as soon as I can with a new hook if needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, this is a bit confusing. I can find a number of refs that say that this was the first suspension bridge in Brazil, however the two I linked to above do seem to pre-date it, and this ref claims that this is the third bridge. So I'm not 100% sure what the answer is here at the moment, and it's probably best to avoid the claim completely for now. I'm also less sure about the claim about it being the fifth suspension bridge to be repaired, given this issue. As such, can I propose this alternative hook:

ALT1: ... that São Vicente Suspension Bridge (pictured), constructed 1911-14, was one of the first suspension bridges in Brazil, and was originally conceived to carry a sewage pipeline?

This is based on this ref, which is from the maintenance company for the bridge so should be more trustworthy. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I accepted the hook in good faith, and I am happy that you7b have voluntarily acknowledged that this claim may not be substantiated. I am happy to go with ALT 1.--Coin945 (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. :-) I've struck the original hook. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)