Talk:Old Exe Bridge/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Neonblak (talk · contribs) 16:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article. I try to be thorough so that we both agree that the GA criteria are met. Your impressive editing history suggests that there may be very little to correct, and that it should be a very interesting read about an historical British bridge.Neonblak ^talk - 16:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• The article appears to be well-written, broad in coverage, stable, neutral, and free of any original research.
• The photos all meet usage requirements and are properly used throughout the article. The "gallery" isn't excessive, nor does it distract the reader with a large break in the article. In fact, I see that it compliments the above text nicely. Alt text is descriptive.
• The citations appear to be used properly, and does not distract the reader. The reference section is properly formatted, and uses reliable sources. Of course, I cannot verify all the information gleaned from the bibliography, I trust the validity of the information is not in dispute.
• The sections are used correctly, and describe the content well.
• The only issues that I observe involve prose and wiki-links. I am not an English professor, so bear with me :)

Background

"Work on The Pont d'Avignon in the south of France began in the 1170s, and at around the same time London Bridge..." - should be a small 't' on The. The wiki-link needs to be corrected. Also, a comma should be used between time and London.

History - Construction

"The bridge was at least 590 feet (180 metres) long..." - The bridge measured at least...

"The foundation were created using piles of timber, reinforced with iron and lead and driven in tightly enough to form a solid base, except in the shallower water closer to the banks, where rubble and gravel were simply tipped onto the river bed." - either foundation needs to be plural or 'were' needs to be 'was'. Also, this is an exceptionally long sentence. This can easily be split into two, maybe "The foundations were created using piles of timber, reinforced with iron and lead driven in tightly enough to form a solid base. Near the banks, where the water was shallower, rubble and gravel were tipped directly onto the river beds."

History - Mediaeval history

use a comma after Priory.

History - Later history

"An Act of Parliament in 1773 empowered the trustees to repair or rebuild the bridge..." - comma after bridge.

"During the work an old brewery and several adjoining buildings along Frog Street were demolished and the street was abandoned in order to make way for a new road scheme connecting with the twin bridges." - comma needed after work and Frog Street. Also, no need for the 'with' after connecting.

"The bases of several of the demolished arches survive on the riverbed and about 25 metres (82 feet) of bridge is buried under Edmund Street and the modern bank of the Exe." - comma after riverbed, should be "of the bridge"? Also, should it not read "are buried" since it is talking about the metres?

Architecture - Churches

"By the end of the 14th century, accumulated silt on the Exeter side allowed a portion of land to be reclaimed and leaving the west wall of the church above dry land." - maybe "reclaimed; leaving the west wall of the church..."? or just a comma, but I think the 'and' just reads weird.

"It is likely that there little or no water..." - insert 'is' between there and little.

"supporting the church by this point," - "at this point"?

Secular buildings

"mediaeval bridges but secular buildings" - comma after bridges.

"At peak, all but" - At its peak?

"They were built with their front walls resting on the parapets of the bridge and the rest of the building supported by wooden posts in the riverbed, until they were demolished in 1881." - how about this, "They were constructed with the front walls resting on the bridge parapets and the rest of the structure supported by wooden posts in the riverbed until they were demolished in 1881."

I will put this on hold until the corrective suggestions are address. Neonblak ^talk - 19:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neonblak: Thank you for picking up the review. I appreciate your attention to detail. I disagree with you on commas; I feel that most of those you suggest are unnecessary (my education told me that commas were generally to be avoided before "but"), but there were one or two that were helpful for longer clauses. Most of the rest of your suggestions I've implemented, except the last one which seems unnecessary to me and introduces potential confusion (there's no reason to avoid describing buildings as "buildings", and "structure" could just as easily apply to the bridge as the buildings). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Most of these were minor suggestions and not required for promotion to GA, and I'm certainly not going to quibble over a few commas. You have cleared up what was needed in my opinion, except for the wikilink redirect for Pont d'Avignon. It redirects to Pont Saint-Bénézet. At the very least, it should be piped. That is the only wikilink redirect issue I caught. There used to be a scan tool for that, but I cannot find it.Neonblak ^talk - 22:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

In the interest of time, I went ahead and made that redirect correction, and will now pass the article. Thank you for your time and efforts ! Neonblak ^talk - 22:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)