Greetings! I will be reviewing this article nomination for Good Article status. My initial review should be up shortly. I will first fill out my review form then a (hopefully) brief prose & reference review. I look forward to reading this article. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, I am not extremely familiar with trains, bridges, engineering, etc, so I may have a few questions simply for my own personal understanding. I am reading and reviewing the article as if I were of the general don't-know-specifics population. As such, it is taking me a bit longer to properly read and review but my review will still be posted in the early hours of tomorrow (UTC). Thank you for your patience. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it would be good to get the viewpoint of someone unfamiliar with both bridge design and Stephenson. It's all too easy to assume that some things are 'just obvious'. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text." I would incorporate the single sentences that start each section into the first paragraph making the whole article read better.
The lead needs to be able to be a stand alone overview of the whole article per MOS:LEAD. Currently it doesn't cover the Location or Comparable bridges at all. As the article is about the bridge, it would be wise to include information about its original location, and maybe even its current display location. I would also recommend including something about how rare the design is (which is a very interesting fact). As this bridge seems to be important to George Stephenson's career, I would also include that it was his design.
I would still omit the comparable bridge (there is only one) from the lead. It's just not that important. Lead space is important and it should focus on the important stuff.
The location could be included, but again even this is minor. The main thing would seem to be that its route was a minor horse-worked feeder to the main line (i.e. not loco-hauled, permitting a lighter bridge) and that it was also part of the world-famous Stockton and Darlington project. The River Gaunless itself is very minor - but then it does give the name. It's unimportant to Stephenson's career (the design went nowhere) and he was involved as the locomotive engineer who took on the whole of the S&DR, not as a bridge expert. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox question: The Infobox says it was opened in 1823. The article says the bridge was originally finished on 23 October 1823 but was not opened for use until September 1825. Which date is the correct opening date? You could also include the close date which seems to be 1901.
The bridge was opened before the S&DR. No doubt people walked across it for two years, but any coal traffic would have had nowhere to go to. I don't have dates for the Brusselton Incline, another necessary engineering work on the branch . Possibly wagon-carted coal did go this way, as a slightly better route than previously, but that's sheer OR at this point. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The very last part of the last line: possibly during a test or demonstration. This information does not seem to be included in reference 5, and would be considered WP:OR. Therefore this part should be removed unless it can be attributed to a WP:RS
This should stay, although the wording might be changed. The point is that although there's a postcard of a locomotive on the bridge, there is no evidence to claim that this indicates locomotives worked across the bridge as a general way of operating. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is the first time in the actual article that you mention the railway, I would use the full name of the railway in end of the first sentence.
In the third sentence: The upper member is in compression, as for an arch bridge, and the lower in tension, as for a suspension bridge. does not make sense to me. From reading the article, I believe that "in compression" and "in tension" are technical terms on the engineering physics of the bridge. Is that correct? Also, when you say as for an... are you meaning similar to like an... or similar to?
If the article can't use "in compression" in contrast to "in tension", then there's no point in going any further.
The idea is that this forms a balanced truss, where the sideways forces in each member cancel out those in the other member (being equal but opposite in direction), leading to a truss with no side forces on its supports and so only requiring simple piers with no need for endways stiffness. This is a run-on sentence and does not read easily. My recommendation would be something similar to this: "The idea is that this forms a balanced truss, where the sideways forces in each member cancel out, being equal but opposite in direction. This leads to a truss with no side forces on its supports and so only requiring simple piers with no need for endways stiffness."
The first time you discuss Brunel, you should use the full name. Also Brunel truss wiki-links to the same article that Saltash does.
The unusual feature of this bridge is that because the deck is above the truss, the vertical members are placed in compressir on, rather than the more normal tension. The first part of the phrase is more opinion than fact. I would write something similar to: "The deck of the bridge is above the truss and the vertical members are placed in compression, unlike most bridges that would have members placed in normal tension."
I'm not changing that. It would be better to fail the GA. Achieving GA far too often makes for worse articles. I don't consider it OR to state "Lenticular trusses below the deck are rare" when this is so self-evident from our existing coverage on lenticular truss. BURDEN would be upon the claim that "lenticular trusses can be placed above or below the deck". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last part of the third full paragraph reads: that is in great contrast to Brunel's heavily unbalanced designs that (for Chepstow at least) are barely recognisable as lenticular. This feels like WP:OR, is there a reference that supports this? If so, please add it and work the piece in the parenthesis into the sentence. If not, remove this piece.
The second sentence in the first paragraph ends in a comma but should be a period.
The first sentence of the second paragraph reads odd to me: The winter of 1824 had heavy snows and even before the line was opened, the bridge was damaged by flooding. I recommend changing to "Heavy snows in the winter of 1824 caused the bridge to be damaged due to flooding prior to opening."
Do you know who did the rebuilding of the bridge?
No I presume it was the same builders as there's no reason to believe otherwise, but I have no source for that.
It may be seen today in the Science Museum, London. I believe you are talking about the model since later you say the bridge is in a different location. I would change this to: "As of 2013 (or whatever date this is true), the model is on display at the Science Museum, London."
Although the last sentence of this section is very interesting, is this fact included in a source? It would be great if we could attributed this. Also, what was the date that it passed this milestone? Seems like it was open/in use from 1825-1901 (76 years) and was first displayed on 1927 to present, but 76 years would've been in 2003. I would include that date (if it is correct) in this sentence.
Are there bridges other than the Escomb Bridge that are comparable to the Gaunless Bridge? If not I would change the title of this section toe Escomb Bridge and add a sentence or two to the paragraph stating how it is one of few that are similar. If there are others, I would recommend including those, even if its just a piece. The title of the section makes it look like there are multiple, but you only list one.
I would split the the three notes into a separate section called Notes. These are important pieces of information that would be better suited in their own section.
You should pull reference into a sub section, called something like Works cited, and do like you've done for reference 4 & 7 where each use of that reference is the specific page number.
This completes my first read-through and review of the article. Unless you object, I'm going to do some minor copy-editing that would be tedious to put in the review. Once again, I am not too knowledgeable on this subject, so I request your patience with any misunderstandings I may have. If you have any questions, or any part of my review does not make sense, please don't hesitate to contact me. You are very close with this article and after these few resolutions and a final read-through, this article will soon pass. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
