Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Old Exe Bridge/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 8 November 2021 [1].

Old Exe Bridge

[edit]
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something completely different. This is an ancient bridge in Exeter, south west England, built from about 1190. For 600 years, if you wanted to travel west from Exeter, you did it by crossing this bridge. The River Exe is now crossed by a pair of bridges built in the 1960s but the remains of the mediaeval bridge (by then buried under the river bank and a road) were restored and you can now walk across it again, not that it leads anywhere.

It took me a few years to get round to writing this, and a few more to get round to finishing it, but I've been accumulating a pile of books on bridges and decided the time was right. It's had a very helpful GA review from Neonblak and Dumelow was a big help in providing one of the main sources. I think it's ready for its star, but all feedback is welcome! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nick-D

[edit]

This article is both interesting and in great shape. The nomination also deserves bonus marks, as the article features photos taken by the nominator! I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • 'mediaeval' seems a bit old-fashioned
    • I suppose my education was old-fashioned but I remember being taught that "medieval" was the "American" (and, implicitly, "wrong") spelling.
  • "The mayor, John Shillingford, appealed for funds to rebuild it. " - can you say when this was?
    • 1447 or shortly after. Clarified.
  • "bridge estate grew to a considerable size and the records show that it leased 15 shops on the bridge, and over 50 other properties elsewhere in Exeter, including mills and agricultural land, all providing an income for the maintenance of the bridge" - mentioning 'bridge' three times in a sentence is probably a bit much, even for an article on a bridge ;)
    • Abridged! ;)
  • "Parts of the mediaeval bridge were exposed by German bombing during the Second World War." - can you say how? (e.g. was this when buildings in the city were destroyed?) Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dumelow

[edit]

Just a note that HJ Mitchell kindly names me in his nomination but I did no more than find a source on the subject and have never edited this article so feel entirely justified in carrying out a prose review. I visit South Devon fairly regularly and have always enjoyed driving past this bridge when heading out of Exeter towards the south coast, I'll have to stop next time and walk across it! A few comments, mostly nitpicking and I am more than happy to discuss any of these - Dumelow (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm very grateful for the source. It was most useful. The article would be a few hundred words shorter without it.
Your changes below look good to me, Support on the prose - Dumelow (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "The project was the idea of Nicholas and Walter Gervase, father and son and influential local merchants, who travelled the country to raise funds" no mention of travelling in the article, only that they raised a public subscription
    • Leave this with me. I think it's in one of the books. Found it!
  • "continued until the Reformation in the mid-16th century." English Reformation would be a better link here
    • Done.
  • By 1447, the bridge was severely dilapidated and the mayor of Exeter appealed for funds to repair it, and it was repaired again in the 16th century." The article isn't clear if the 1447 repairs went ahead so "repaired again" might be wrong
    • Fair point. Adjusted.
Background
  • "Exeter was founded as Isca Dumnoniorum by the Romans." I think a date (if available) would be helpful to the reader here
    • Added.
  • "Bridge building was sparse in England through the Dark Ages" I think modern historians have moved away from using the "Dark Ages" and I think 1190 is late by any definition of the term. Early Middle Ages seems to be the accepted term for the period (though the period you discuss runs into the High Middle Ages). Happy to hear more opinions on this, though - I don't know a great deal about this era.
    • Altered. Not really my are either but I don't have strong feelings on it.
History
  • "Nicholas and Walter Gervase", plausible redlinks? (Walter, as repeated mayor of Exeter perhaps moreso than Nicholas)
    • Possibly. Walter is probably notable but I feel the chances of someone creating an article are slim. It would probably require a lot of research and remain quite an obscure article.
  • "The bridge is known to have been repaired several times throughout its lifetime." repetition of "time" could perhaps be avoided
    • Done.
  • " Heavitree breccia, a local stone not quarried until the mid 14th century (approximately 150 years after the bridge was built)", not sure the bit in brackets is needed. Can we assume some competence on the readers part in dating?
    • This comes a while after the date of construction, and there are quite a few imprecise dates in this part of the article so I thought it was helpful.
  • "the process was frustrated by Shillingford's sudden death the following year", the last year mentioned was 1447 but Shillingford's death was in 1458 (according to his article). Do we need to introduce 1457 as the year Shillingford spoke with Kemp?
    • Fixed. Must have misread it. Apparently things moved slowly in the 15th century!
  • "An Act of Parliament in 1773 empowered the trustees to repair or rebuild the bridge", this is the first mention of trustees. Do we have any more background to give on this?
    • Now moot with the re-order as suggested below.
  • "completion of a new, three-arch masonry bridge by Joseph Dixon in 1778" again, is Dixon a plausible redlink?
    • Couldn't find much on him, but plausible.
  • "The 18th-century bridge was itself demolished and replaced with a three-hinged steel arch bridge" "three-hinged" arch bridges could use an explanatory link, though I couldn't find any relevant content on-wiki. Leave it with me and I'll see if I can add something somewhere.
    • I defer to your expertise on that one!
I don't remember much from my structural engineering classes but I've created a basic article at Hinged arch bridge - Dumelow (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, thanks! Added a link. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Repairs and maintenance of the bridge were provided for from the proceeds of land bought by the Gervases at the time the bridge was built," Comes right after a paragraph discussing the modern bridge so could perhaps use "mediaeval" to preface the first mention of "bridge".
    • See below.
  • Ah, I see the third paragraph of "Later history" is where the turnpike trust is mentioned. Personally I think this paragraph, relating entirely to the mediaeval bridge, could sit best as the first paragraph of this section, before the mention of later events. But happy to hear other thoughts.
    • Done. I thought about moving it to the end of the "mediaeval history" section but that created layout issues.
  • "The 20th century engineers", think this should this be "20th-century", as a compound modifier
    • Good catch. This is the sort of thing I normally pick up in FACs!
  • "At this time, Frog Street was abandoned." this is the first mention in the main text of Frog Street so the reader has no idea what it is
    • Added a note.
Architecture
  • "the pointed Gothic style", a link to Gothic architecture might be useful here
    • Done.
  • "St Edmund's was approximately 20 metres (66 feet) long and 5.5 metres (18 feet) with an entrance on the bridge and possibly a second entrance underneath" missing word after the 5.5 metres part, possible wide?
    • Done.
  • "It had a rectangular plan, 54 feet (16 metres) long by 16 feet 6 inches (5 metres) wide." seems to contradict the earlier dimensions of the church, is this inconsistency in measurements, changes over time or do they refer to different parts of the church?
    • Need to double check this.Removed the other measurement as I can't now find it. I'll check the sources again when I've got fresher eyes but that solves the contradiction.
  • "A Seal of the bridge was made for use by the bridge wardens", decapitalise "seal"
    • Done.
  • "or possibly the chantry chapel", you link it later but move the link to here, which is its first mention
    • Done.
  • "during the Dissolution of the Monasteries", our article doesn't capitalise this term
    • Odd, since "Reformation" is used as a proper noun but not worth worrying about.
  • "during the Reformation", link to English Reformation
    • Done.

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Not much from me. This is a delightful article, beautifully written and widely sourced. These few quibbles are all I can come up with:

  • First a point on spelling. Although left to my own devices I prefer to use the spelling "mediaeval" rather than "medieval" I must in conscience point out that using it here does not really conform with Wikipedia's precept that the most widely used spellings should generally prevail. (Needless to say, I can't now find that guidance in the MoS – I can never find anything in the MoS – but I'm pretty sure it's the general rule.) Moreover, using the old spelling sits oddly with using the trendy "CE" instead of the traditional "AD" alongside it.
    • Consensus seems to be in favour of the modern spelling, and it's certainly not worth falling out over!
  • Background
  • "the River Thames, which was completed in 1209" – not the happiest of wording. The River was completed rather earlier than 1209.
  • Indeed it was. Fixed.
  • Construction
  • "Professor W. G. Hoskins" – I think the MoS tells us not to use people's job titles such as "Professor", though no doubt something like "W. G. Hoskins, professor of something at Whatsit University" would pass muster.
  • "The bridge was at least 590 feet (180 metres) long[13] (some studies have suggested the bridge was longer" – perhaps just "it" for the second mention of the bridge?
  • Done.
  • Later history
  • "a public house (pub)" – do we really need a translation? (And in passing, and with no pretence on my part to historical knowledge, are "public house" and "pub" not a touch anachronistic for the mid-18th century? Wouldn't it have been called an inn? But what do I know?)
  • I'm not sure. "Pub" is the term used by the sources. I'm not sure all readers are familiar with the pub, but I've taken out the full term and left the link. Hopefully that will keep everyone happy.
  • "the marsh land over which" – the OED has "marshland" as a single word.
  • Then I defer to the OED!
  • Architecture
  • "St Thomas' Church" – odd form of possessive: wouldn't St Thomas's be more usual? (Here and later in the text.) And you have the more familiar St Thomas's at one point later. I'd standardise on that.
  • Standardised as you recommend.
  • "Dendrochronology (tree-ring dating)" – not sure we need both a blue link and an explanation inline.
  • I think it's helpful. It's an interesting and uncommon term. We shouldn't make the reader click away to find out what it means, but we should let them explore if they're curious.
  • Secular buildings
  • "Bridge chapels were relatively common – relative to what? If you mean 'quite common' or 'fairly common' best to say so plainly.
  • Relative to the number of bridges. But no meaning is lost by removing the word.

That's my lot. I'll be back in due course to, I have no doubt, add my support. Tim riley talk 20:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim! Always a pleasure, and I appreciate your attention to detail. @Nick-D and Dumelow: I believe I've addressed all your comments as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support the promotion of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Beautifully illustrated, a cracking read, and evidently well and widely sourced. (And I greatly enjoyed reading and reviewing it.) Tim riley talk 19:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardize to "City, State" location usage; London is obviously exempt.
    • Only one of the places listed is a state. For relatively unknown English towns (Princes Risborough, Stroud), I've provided the county to aid in identifying the location.
  • Hayman, Richard (2020) WorldCat lists both New York and Oxford as publishing locations, may wish to change to "Oxford & New York", default to your used edition.
    • As a rule, I default to the location given on the title page.
  • Henderson, Charles; Jervoise, Edwyn (1938) add ID. 609787393 is a usable OCLC, but default to used edition.
    • Found and added.
  • McFetrich, David (2019) Missing publisher of "Pen & Sword Books Limited"; also, what makes him a high quality reliable source?
    • Publisher added. McFetrich is an engineer and Pen and Sword is a reputable publisher; Pen and Sword publications are used in probably hundreds of FAs.
  • @HJ Mitchell: That is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notes (non-issues)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Old_Exe_Bridge/archive1&oldid=1054159679"