Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a236c2bc5be1a151

Jump to content

Talk:Satank Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 7 months ago by HurricaneZeta in topic Did you know nomination

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by HurricaneZeta (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

The restored Satank Bridge
The restored Satank Bridge
  • ... that Satank Bridge (pictured) to Satank, Colorado, was constructed in 1900 for $2,325, while its 2011 restoration was estimated to cost at least $750,000?
  • Source: "Renovation Complete of 111-Year Old Satank Bridge". garfieldcountyco.gov. Garfield County, Colorado. May 12, 2011. Retrieved October 29, 2025.
Created by Pbritti (talk). Number of QPQs required: 4. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 85 past nominations.

Pbritti (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC).Reply

  • Hi Pbritti, review follows: article moved to mainspace on 27 October and nominated within 7 days; article exceeds minimum length and is well-enough written; article is cited inline throughout to what look to be reliable sources; I didn't pick up on any overly-close paraphrasing from a spot check on the sources; hook fact is interesting enough for me (even accounting for inflation the values are markedly different), though perhaps also consider alternatives eg. that the settlement has had four names; the proposed hook fact checks out to sources cited. A handful of minor issues - Dumelow (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • The links you bolded are the same article, I would lose the bridge one since the article is at Satank, Colorado
  • The image used must be in the article linked, this one isn't
  • The cost stated here and in the source is $750,000, in the article you have $750,500
  • To comply with DYK rules you need to have a citation immediately after the two sentences with the costs in
  • You need to provide QPQs
  • @Dumelow: I've complete two of the four required QPQs and I appreciate your patience on that. I am a bit confused by The links you bolded are the same article. One article is about the bridge on the National Register of Historic Places, the other is on the unincorporated community. I have corrected the figure on expense. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I must have clicked the same link twice and assumed one was a redirect to the town article! I will review the Satank Bridge article soon. I would suggest you link this article from Satank, Colorado and consider using a {{main}} header in the "Satank Bridge" section of that article - Dumelow (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely no worries. Good idea with the Template:Main. Working on the last two QPQs momentarily. Thanks for your patience and review! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Satank Bridge is also fine and meets all criteria. Let me know when you have completed the last two QPQs - Dumelow (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ah, you already did! Good to go - Dumelow (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply