Talk:The Iron Bridge/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 11:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a few bridge articles, and this is one of the most famous examples of British bridges. I went on a school trip to see it, and went back to walk across it a few years ago. It makes a sharp contrast to the nearby Telford town centre.

This looks to be a well written article. I went through the lead, and I can't obviously see anything to criticise other than possibly it could be a little longer (though not by much).

Specific comments will follow. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

It would be worth briefly explaining the Ironbridge Gorge and explain why the geography was an impediment to travel
"the nearest bridge being at Buildwas 3 kilometres (1.9 mi) away" - as this is an article about a British bridge, with an emphasis on historical importance, I would say that imperial measurements should be listed first
"The Iron Bridge was the first of its kind to be constructed, although not the first to be considered or the first iron bridge of any kind" - I don't understand this, this sentence seems to contradict itself. Either it was the first iron bridge in the world, or it wasn't.

It's the first cast iron arch bridge, ie with the material being used in compression. There are earlier bridges made with wrought iron chains in tension, probably first used in China. Note that this bridge is made of cast iron, not wrought iron. This matters, there is a history of "GF" changes to this article that swap these around.

At the time, cast iron was a new material, or at least a game-changing price drop to an existing material. Wrought iron was always relatively expensive and was particularly expensive before 1840(ish), when improvements in furnaces made it cheaper. Note how Brunel's use of it increased substantially after that date. A suspension bridge with wrought iron chains could have been designed at this time (although not on this site) but it wouldn't have represented the same leap of innovation as this one did, using this new material. Nor would it have been an affordable way to construct a bridge. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so "The Iron Bridge was the first cast iron bridge to be constructed" - that should sort it? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable phrasing, but we should still clarify that there are earlier wrought iron bridges and possibly a plan for one in cast iron at Lyons (with which I'm unfamiliar).

If a statement in a WP article is seen as unclear it's usual that not only should it be clarified, but that any nearby targets for confusion (such as wrought iron) ought to be explained too. Other contemporary cast iron bridges (assuming this is genuine, WP isn't RS), even if unconstructed, should be included as an important historical context. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about "The Iron Bridge was the first cast iron bridge to complete construction ..." (and then mention the earlier examples given) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think "to be constructed" is fine. The Lyons bridge seems to have been test-assembled in the builder's yard (easier than across water) at most, but that's hardly "constructed". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency, River Severn should be linked again on first use in the body

Proposal

"and it is possible that he had integrated" - "it's possible that" is a weasel phrase. If we don't know specifically what Pritchard's background is, explicitly attribute who suggested it (in this case, the author).

Construction

"The nascent bridge" - just "The bridge" should suffice here, we've just read that it's new in some detail
"More information about how the bridge was built came from the discovery in 1997" - this sentence is confusing and seems back to front. Maybe rewrite it to start "In 1997, a watercolour by Elias Martin was discovered in a Stockholm museum, which showed the bridge under construction in 1779"
"BBC Timewatch programme which was shown in 2002" - suggest "the television programme Timewatch, shown the following year"

Design

As mentioned above, the bridge was designed in feet and inches and those are the measurements that should come first
"Exactly 378 tons 10 cwt" - don't need "Exactly", the reader should be able to assume that's the case. For conversion, I would simply list metric tonnes. "378½ tons" may be a simpler way of expressing this, without involving hundredweights
the final design was of Pritchard" - "the final design was Pritchard's"
"with a budget of GB£3,250" - just "£3,250" will do. A possible addition would be an inflation conversion to how much that's worth today

This template is ugly anyway, with no space between the GB and the £ sign. It's hardly clear why we need "GB" in there anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Whilst the actual cost of the bridge is unknown" - according to my references for British English grammar, this should be "while". The cost of the bridge presumably has been unknown for some time.
"the excess being born by Darby, who was highly indebted from other ventures as well." - "suggest "Darby, who was already indebted from other ventures, agreed to cover the excess"

Repairs

"and involved the replacement of the stone land arches" - "which involved the replacement of the stone land arches"
"its construction was described as "very bad" by Charles Hutton" - would it be worth saying exactly why Hutton commented on this, if we know?

Closure

Worth just clarifying who Mott, Hay and Anderson are
"to vehicles no heavier than 2 tonnes" - see earlier comments. I don't believe the UK had switched to designs in metric in 1923 (I think it wasn't until World War II, reflected in the switch to the metric National Grid by the Ordnance Survey around 1945), so imperial should go first.
"they should be allowed to use the bridge, so the trustees took the decision to close the bridge" - to avoid repetition, the second "the bridge" can simply be "it"
This BBC News source goes into more depth about scheduled demolition, stating that it was a considered possibility between WWII and as late as 1960. That would be worth working into the article.

Restoration

Same problem with GB£ from earlier
"The consulting engineers Sandford, Fawcett, Wilton and Bell elected to place" - suggest "decided to place"
"work was complete for the bicentenary of the opening, which was celebrated with a pig roast" - is mention of a pig roast really important? I'd remove that
"In 1999–2000" - suggest "Between 1999 and 2000"

Artistic depictions

"Over fifty painters and engravers came to the area around Coalbrookdale during the period 1750–1830 to witness and record the rise of industry" - taken on its own, that doesn't actually mention the bridge. Could the sentence be reworded slightly so it does?
"Possibly the first artist" - again per WP:WEASEL, suggest "One of the first artists"
"for a "drawing" of the bridge" - why the quotation marks around "drawing"?
"Royal Academy of Arts" should be linked with full (could be confused "Royal Academy" with the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst)

[[Royal Academy of Arts|Royal Academy]] is apppropriate as the common name for the RA is the Royal Academy or even the RA. The common name for Sandhurst is Sandhurst. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If all that is true, why did Anthony Appleyard move it [1] to its current name via a requested move two years ago, and say it was "uncontroversial"? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is uncontroversial. There's a difference between a canonical name as used for an article title, and an appropriate way to refer to it inline from another article. Particularly with the piped link we can avoid any risk of ambiguity. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But why not just call the page Royal Academy and be done with it? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not canonical (there's at least the RMA as well) and it's unclear in isolation. Also we deliberately favour full names rather than shortened names. If used in a context though, those reasons don't apply anything like so much. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it's like "According to records held in [[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|The National Archives]] ...." Got it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

In general, I think the image captions are quite short and don't seem to be in sync with the narrative. A selection of photos is nice, but each one should have individual context and augment what the reader is looking at.

General

Should "the Gorge" be capitalised as a proper noun (as at present) if it's not being used in the full form of "Ironbridge Gorge"? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

There doesn't look like an insurmountable amount of work here, so I'll put the review on hold pending improvements. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesx12345: - anyone there? @Andy Dingley: - would you be amenable to resolving these issues, or at least giving a second opinion on whether we should continue with the review? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like I'll have to postpone this review for the minute. I might pick it up and improve it myself if I've got time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]