# Talk:The Iron Bridge

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Iron Bridge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 11:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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)


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


### 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)


### 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)

@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)
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)

I've added a cite needed tag for unsourced info.
Shouldn't be too hard to fix. 
— Cirt (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Jamesx12345 20:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks much better, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In the section Closure, the article suggests that in 1923 a weight limit of 2 tonnes (2.0 long tons; 2.2 short tons) was proposed, and that a weight limit of 4 tonnes (3.9 long tons; 4.4 short tons) was actually imposed.  It says "tonnes", which means metric tonnes, so 2000 kilograms and 4000 kilograms.
Given the dates in the 1920s - well before metrication seriously took hold - this seems unlikely to me.  It seems much more likely that it was 2 long tons (2,032 kg; 2 short tons) and 4 long tons (4,064 kg; 4 short tons).  Can anyone with access to the source check what it says?
Note that in this sort of context, WP:MOSNUM says to use units of definition first, so if the weight limit really was defined in metric tonnes the current version would be correct, and if it was defined in imperial long tons the version with long tons first would be correct. Kahastok talk 16:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

A new addition lists the See also for an 1801 cast-iron arch bridge in Jamaica.

Does this warrant inclusion as a see also here?
Is the text "used the same technology developed for The Iron Bridge" at the Rio Cobre article accurate?
Both are cast-iron arch bridges. Both were cast in sections and assembled on-site. The Jamaican bridge was cast by Walker & Co in Yorkshire. The Jamaican bridge is notable in itself, and is notable as a novel iron bridge outside the UK.
However there is 20 years between these two bridges. By the time of the Rio Cobre bridge a cast-iron bridge is no longer novel. Also, although both are cast in sections, this is done for different reasons. The Jamaican bridge needed to be shipped in manageable portions. Their design techniques are also quite different. Early iron bridges, including The Iron Bridge, Pont-y-Cafnau (1793), Coalport Bridge (1799) and several others (although few survivors) are timber bridge designs, built in iron. They are poor designs as cast iron structures, as they rely far too much on tension and bending forces, for which cast iron is weak.  Later cast-iron bridge designs, including the 1801 Jamaican bridge are designed instead around compressive loads.  The Jamaican bridge is a far more advanced design than its near contemporary at Coalport.  The means of attaching the components is also different. The Iron Bridge and Pont-y-Cafnau use carpenter's dovetail joints, an awful design for cast iron. Coalport (AFAIK) avoids dovetails, but it still used tusked tenons, another carpenter's joint.  The Jamaican bridge instead used bolted dowel rods, of wrought iron in shear.
The Jamaican bridge is an important bridge and deserves more coverage, including in timeline articles for the history of bridge construction – but is it described correctly here?   Is it relevant to The Iron Bridge, which it post-dates by twenty years and has had no influence over. Is it also correct to describe it as "the same technology" when their only shared technology is that of iron casting, which was no longer a novel approach by 1801? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

As the article stands, it implies that cast iron is an unsuitable material for bridges, "not a suitable structural material", and was avoided thereafter, " a few instances bridges and buildings built with cast iron failed". This is quite untrue - cast iron is an excellent bridge building material and was one of the Victorian's favourite materials for them. What changed is the design of bridges - the early iron bridges of this group were designed inappropriately for cast iron as they followed carpentry practice too closely. As the designs changed though, cast iron was used entirely in compression and successfully.  Although wrought iron was also used (as the article implies) this was then used mostly as plate girders (or at least, rolled linear sections) rather than the short sections of The Iron Bridge. This just wasn't a bridge which went anywhere, design wise. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please feel free to add any improved explanation.Phmoreno (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The type of this bridge is certainly not a cast iron arch bridge since it does not meet the requirements of a true arch.
It seems that various editors have refused to accept my modification of the design type to truss arch bridge even though as far as my understanding of the Iron Bridge' construction indicates that whatever sort of bridge it might be, it's certainly not a true arch bridge: the thing is hinged in the middle of its arch construction.
Since the claim that this bridge is a true arch bridge is unsourced, and since it seems that Wikipedia editors can't accept the designation 'truss arch bridge' despite the truss arch bridge article on Wikipedia describing the Iron Bridge as such, the only sensible thing to do is leave the infobox 'design' parameter blank unless a reliable source for such a claim can be found.
Please do not disregard this advice, or you run the risk of being reported for disruptive editing.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It's an arch.  Now admittedly, only some of it's an arch, and much of it (the outer two partial arches) are almost entirely non-functional. But that just makes it an inefficient arch, with extra bits attached. It doesn't stop it being an arch underneath. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
That is your personal opinion, which is unsourced and as far as I can tell happens to be completely wrong for reasons which I've explained many times but you refuse to consider.
Stop making this article wrong by insisting on including unsourced information based purely on your personal opinion.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I did some more web searching and - finally! - found a reliable source. de Haan, David (2011-02-17). "The Iron Bridge - How was it Built?". BBC. Retrieved 2019-12-07. The arch has five parallel iron frames [...] The two arcs were joined at the Crown by a sophisticated scarf joint, which was secured by three large nuts and bolts. written by:
David de Haan is deputy director of the Ironbridge Gorge Museum Trust, and programme director of the Ironbridge Institute. He worked at the Science Museum in London from 1970-78 and is a Fellow of the Museums Association and Member of the Newcomen Society.
I think he's trustworthy on the subject.
As for my previous mistaken ideas: I recall watching the BBC programme referred to in the above source which showed the construction of the half-sized replica. I recall the arc segments being pinned together as they were erected, but that pinning was obviously just the first stage in making a rather more secure joint.
Having a reliable source for claims: that's what we need here.  Not edit warring based on personal beliefs.  Ahem.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
It's difficult to be sure, because the ironwork uses carpentry joints, but it seems to me that the two quadrants of the bridge each form rigid trusses, more-or-less hinged at the bottom and leaning against each other at a more-or-less single point in the middle of the bridge. That makes it structurally a "three-hinged arch". But I'm not a civil engineer, so don't take my word for it. The only reliable sources I have seen call it an "arch" bridge. That's good enough for me. Hallucegenia (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
The reference I found states that each of the five sets of opposing quadrants of the arch are joined with a triple bolted scarf joint at the apex of the arch, which seems to me would make each pair of quadrants into a single stiff semicircle rather than a pair of hinged quadrants (a pair of hinged quadrants is what I'd mis-remembered them as).
Could you explain how that construction would count as a three hinged arch? - I'm puzzled and would appreciate illumination. I'm not a civil engineer either.
N.B: my initial editing wasn't based on my memory, but rather on an (inaccurate) claim on the truss arch bridge page - which was supported by my memory; the opposing claim of the Iron Bridge being an arch bridge not being supported by any source cited on The Iron Bridge page at the time. But I found a search term which came up with a reliable source: as Andy Dingley said, it's an arch bridge but not because he said so.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure: The bridge is a three-hinged arch because it is structurally like two books leaning against each other for support. Imagine what would happen if the river banks moved a foot further apart. The bridge would move as if it were hinged at the top. The two sides of the bridge would fall towards each other until they were touching again.  The beams at the top of each principal arch (where the scarf joint is) would bend and then break because there isn't actually a hinge built into the design, but these members are far too thin to resist any bending movement. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica says a lot about three-hinged arches here: [[2]]  Section 11.(f) Metal Arch Bridges even describes how thermal expansion and contraction caused repeated cracking of the Iron Bridge because that made it flex in the same way.
The current Britannica encyclopedia article seems to give an even better introduction to the subject: [3]. It describes the difference between Truss and Arch designs. In the section "Iron and steel bridges, 1779–1929/Iron/Early designs" it has a paragraph on the Iron Bridge: 
Is that good enough as a WP:Reliable source? Hope this helps. Hallucegenia (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely super - thanks very much.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

British English prefers "sulfur", and here on Wikipedia, this is recognised in WP:ALUM. I don't blame anybody for not knowing this, but that's the way it is. --The Huhsz (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No, British English prefers sulphur. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
No, since 1992, official advice is to use "sulfur". IUPAC and the RSC are the authorities. "Sulphur" is an anachronism. You could, I suppose, argue for using it in this article as an intentional anachronism, like "reflexion" or something, but I don't think that's a good argument. But British English prefers "sulfur". Hence the advice in WP:ALUM. --The Huhsz (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
No, British English prefers sulphur. IUPAC might prefer sulfur, but even British chemists are slow to adopt it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The RSC is the authority. --The Huhsz (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Of course not. There is no Académie française in the UK, and the RSC have no more chance of that role than the RSC. Per WP:ALUM, we should use sulphur here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:ALUM says nothing about how to spell anything outside articles on chemistry-related topics, and therefore has no applicability in this dispute.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:SULF states that the spelling sulfur not sulphur should be used in all chemistry related articles.  That is not the same as saying that any reference to the element sulphur should be spelled as sulfur, nor is it saying that any article which refers to the element sulphur classes as a chemistry-related article.
If the intention were that any article referring to the element sulphur should be considered as a chemistry-related article and so the spelling sulfur should always be used, then the guidance would simply have stated that the spelling sulfur should be used in all articles.
MOS:ARTCON uses clearer language to make the same point by stating that this rule applies For articles about chemistry-related topics.
This article is about a bridge: the article topic is civil engineering, not chemistry.  Therefore, WP:SULF does not apply.  MOS:RETAIN does apply.  
When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another.
Thus, reverting the change to sulfur back to the original sulphur is in line with Wikipedia policy.
Not only that: since this is an article about a bridge in Britain, British spelling should be used.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I totally aree. Since 1992, the Royal Society of Chemistry, which regulates stuff like this in the UK, has recommended "sulfur". I think by definition, when you find yourself talking about the sulfur content of iron, you are reading or editing a chemistry-related article. I think your only argument here would be that you're using period spellings. I don't think it's a very good argument though. --The Huhsz (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The Royal Society of Chemistry does not regulate British spelling. Nothing regulates British spelling. If you think I'm wrong, try and find any reliable source which claims otherwise.
This article is very obviously about a bridge. Bridges are not chemistry. Chemistry is mentioned in the article, for sure - that doesn't make the article fall into the category specified by MOS:ARTCON: For articles about chemistry-related topics.  This article is about a bridge and that's not a chemistry related topic.  As I pointed out above, if the idea was that any reference to sulphur should be spelt sulfur, then the guidance would have said so.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
No-one's personal opinion is the point. Reliable reference sources are the point. Please see WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BURDEN.
The unofficial Web page which was claimed above to provide official advice states without referencing a reliable source that the Royal Society of Chemistry Nomenclature Committee recommended the use of sulfur in 1992. Fair enough: that lines up with the Wikipedia guidance to use the spelling sulfur in chemistry-related articles. I'm not disputing that point.
I cite two reliable sources below, which make it clear that sulphur is the generally preferred spelling in British English, outside the specific field of chemistry:
"Sulphur". Collins Dictionary. HarperCollins Publishers. Retrieved 2019-12-08. English: sulphur [] American: sulfur
Allen, R.E., ed. (1990). The Concise Oxford Dictionary (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 1220. ISBN 0-19-861200-1. sulphur n & v (US sulfur)
Please bear in mind WP:BURDEN, which states:
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material [...]
In other words, don't make a change unless you can back it up with a reliable source. If you ignore that advice, you'll make a hairy nuisance of yourself (he said, looking at himself in the mirror...).
Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I gave a reliable source for why this spelling is obsolescent, and why on Wikipedia we prefer to spell it a different way. The two of you are arguing that it's your personal preference to have it spelled the old-fashioned way, and that this article which discusses the sulfur and phosphorus content of cast iron, nevertheless isn't a chemistry article. It isn't that important to me, I suppose; I'll leave you to it. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Every aspect of your argument is fallacious.
You have not in fact provided a source indicating that the spelling is in any way obsolescent. Nor have you provided any source indicating the preferred spelling on Wikipedia outside of chemistry related articles.
And it's quite insulting for you to suggest that I'm imposing my personal preference when what I've done is follow Wikipedia policy and provide two genuinely reliable sources to justify the use of the spelling sulphur in articles on British topics that are not chemistry related articles.
I provided two reliable sources which indicate that sulphur is the current spelling of the element in general use in British English. It's not old-fashioned as you incorrectly indicate: it's bang up to date and totally current.
WP:SULF does not apply to Wikipedia outside of articles on chemistry related topics. The article you linked to did not link to a definitive information source and therefore is not a very reliable source at all - in any case, the Royal Society of Chemistry has no power to regulate spelling. It can recommend the use of a spelling in the technical field of chemistry, but that's it. If I were writing a technical article on chemistry, I'd follow its recommendations - even phosforus which is an abomination. But everywhere else, I'll use current standard spellings.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
"Phosforus" is not a correct spelling in any dialect,and never has been. Was this a joke? If you like "sulphur" you could try introducing "turph"; it uses the same pretentious and fallacious spelling that "sulphur" does. Thankfully modern usage has left both "ph" forms behind. This article is welcome to keep "ph" since it's the personal preference of the two of you, and since you (rather bizarrely) claim it's not a chemistry-related article, you are within your rights. Do me a favour though; ping me if you ever want to peer-review the article.  I recognise that currently the article is a long way off being at that status, so Iwon't hold my breath. Cheers, --The Huhsz (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
"Phosforus" was a mistake due to my imperfect memory (I'm sure I've met the spelling suggested somewhere, but I can't seem to find it on-line).
One more time: the spelling sulphur is neither pretentious nor fallacious nor a personal preference on my part beyond my preference for standard spellings as documented in reliable dictionaries of modern English - two of which I've cited previously.
Dictionaries documenting modern usage of English state clearly that sulphur is the standard British spelling of the word. I can't imagine why you continue to insist that your personal opinion is correct in the face of reliable sources contradicting you.
I've no idea why you're of the opinion that ph in spellings is pretentious or fallacious, given the evidence to the contrary presented by all dictionaries which document modern British English. Generally speaking, in English ph for f indicates the word ultimately derives from (ancient) Greek. Learning the spelling teaches you something about the source of the word. And I've never seen anyone suggesting that we should change the spelling of the name of the letter phi (φ,Φ) to fi.
Turf is derived from Old English, ultimately from Germanic (according to my copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary), and has never been spelt with a ph. Doing so would not be pretentious: it'd just be wrong; unattested to by any reliable source (and no wonder).
As for bizarre: thinking that an article about a bridge counts as an article on a chemistry related topic requires some mental gymnastics my regrettably standard-issue brain seems incapable of. Perhaps you might condescend to enlighten me as to how what looks to my cloddish mind like a civil engineering article is really about chemistry?
WP:AGF; but in my case, you can also sometimes assume a certain degree of sarcasm and irony.
Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Ostrichyearning3 and I thought it would be worth trying to improve this article to the level where it would qualify for WP:GA status. The previous assessment in 2014 left some comments, and the article itself has evolved a bit since then. I've started this talk section so we can discuss what needs to be done, and see if anyone else wants to help. Regards Hallucegenia (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Probably best to fully address any points still standing in the previous review and can then re-submit it! best, Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I wondered  if @Ritchie333: would like to join us? Hallucegenia (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: would be able to help, he's done a lot of work with civil engineering structures in this area. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Iron Bridge/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Lead is a bit short for an article of this length.  Aim to cover the pertinent points from each section in there.
Expanded lead - a bit more background material, and expanded the background such as the area being rich in mineral deposits.
Refs not needed in the lead assuming that the material is mentioned in the main body and referenced there (which it should be!)
Fixed
"Ironbridge Gorge" is overlinked in the lead.
Fixed
"first major bridge" what is the definition of "major" here?
This is a bit tricky - a lot of sources say "first iron bridge in the world" but it's not quite that - with the ones in Lyon and Yorkshire mentioned later on. "Major" might not be the right word but think it needs to be qualified.
"two miles away" convert for our metric friends.
Done
"The iron bridge was therefore..." shouldn't this be capitalised?
Done
"considered or the" nor.
Done
"in Kirklees, Yorkshire in 1" comma after Yorkshire.
Done
Ref 11 makes no mention of 'iron mad'.
Added citation.
Broseley is overlinked.
Fixed.
"chimney-pieces" why is this hyphenated.
Changed to chimneypieces
"between three and four thousand pounds" I would write this out in numbers and then inflate to 2016 figures.
Expanded and inflated.
" Coalbrookdale" is overlinked.
Fixed
" Royal Assent" no need for capital A.
Fixed
Madeley overlinked.
Fixed
Benthall overlinked.
Fixed
Link some of the jargon, e.g. derrick, abutment, rib etc.
Ended up moving a paragraph explaining the components of the bridge further up.
" in 1779.[25][23] " ref order.
Fixed
" 5.5 long tons (5.6 tonnes)" previous conversion included lbs, suggest this does too.
Fixed
"Two supplemental ..." this (short) paragraph is unreferenced.
Refs added.
cast iron and wrought iron are overlinked.
Fixed.
"harmless Manganese sulfide." -> harmless manganese sulphide (you called it sulphur in the table, not sulfur...)
Fixed per WP:SULFUR
Buildwas is overlinked.
Fixed
Would be interesting to know some of the highlights of the table of tolls?
Unfortunately can't find much useful information about the tolls! Cossons and Trinder 2002 is the best source by far available and contains nothing. I'm not sure about the provenance of the table of tolls - there might be some more info in the museum.
"no money for " budget, instead of money.
"Construction of the arch was carried out by the Tarmac Construction..." unfortunate repeat of Construction.
Might need to link this for non-European readers.
"210 feet span" convert.
Fixed
"1793-96," en-dash not hyphen.  Twice.
Fixed
"235ft" convert and consistent spacing before units.
Fixed
Link voussoirs.
Fixed
"a great flood " large flood.
Fixed
"30ft" see above.
Fixed
"(This 1799 ..." don't see why this needs to be in parentheses.
Fixed
"Craigellachie bridge" it was capital B in the preceding text.
Fixed
"(1795-96)" en-dash again.
Fixed
Coalbrookdale  overlinked again.
Fixed
"The Tollhouse from the east in 2019" this image is already being used above.
Fixed, removed from gallery
Just let the {{reflist}} do its thing, don't force a width.
Fixed
Single-page references should be p. not pp.
Fixed
Spaced hyphens should be spaced en-dashes.
Fixed (I think)
Online refs should have publication/accessdates wherever possible.
Fixed
Is it BBC or BBC in the refs?
I've tried to make it consistent now - so it's BBC News for any news articles and BBC for the non-news pages.
"Telford and Wrekin Borough Council" is mentioned in the infobox/categories but not the article.
Fixed
"Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks" is a category but not mentioned/ref'd anywhere else.
Fixed
Like for "Archaeological sites in Shropshire"
Not sure this can really be referenced?
Grade I listing is only mentioned in the lead/infobox, not the main prose.
Fixed
That's all I have for right now.  On hold. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for a very thorough and useful review! The article's had a few major contributors since I last tried to get it promoted 6 years ago - hence the formatting differences! But it's benefitted from having a few more angles. If there's anything else I'll try and look at it this evening! many thanks, Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Ostrichyearning3 It's looking very good now.  Last comment, the sentence starting "The Iron Bridge is made of cast iron, ...." and the table appear to be unreferenced?  Can you fix that?  Then we're good to go.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Cheers!! I've added another ref and a ref tag in that section. best, Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok, the article now easily meets GA criteria.  So I'm promoting. Cheers, good work.   The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much for a very helpful review - hope all is well! best, Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

None of the references I checked use The Iron Bridge with a capital T, suggesting that the recognised name of the subject is just Iron Bridge. Is there a reason the article shouldn't be at Iron Bridge (England) or some similar variety? --Paul_012 (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm inclined to agree, and only didn't question the title because it's been that way for a while! It's pretty clunky, and if searching for it you wouldn't start with a "the". A brief debate on 25-26 May 2006 led to the current title, if it was something else Iron Bridge seems like the best option, I think it's notable enough compared to the other items at Iron Bridge to have first claim on the name.  Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the bridge is usually referred to as "the Iron Bridge", but Wikipedia articles start with a capital letter, so I'd be inclined to leave the entry as "The Iron Bridge". Hallucegenia (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this reasoning makes much sense. If it's not capitalised, it's not part of the name. Compare "the Tower of London", for example. It's always used with the, but the article is at Tower of London. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I also agree, but suggest you start a formal WP:RM on the issue — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find any written evidence to suggest that the bridge had been painted black, before it was blue-grey. It was just that from a 1963 photo, it looks like it was, although it could have just been the light. What do my fellow Wikipedians think? SethWhales talk 06:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Somewhere there is a report about the historic paint analysis. I don't have a copy, can't find it online, and can't remember whether there was a black layer. I know some of the people involved in the project so I'll drop them a line. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell: Thanks. SethWhales talk 15:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
The English Heritage article about their paint analysis is here, as referenced in the article. I bet they published the details somewhere. Also the article says that the 1980 repaint was the first in the 20th century. So it would have been blackened from coal smoke and air pollution from before the Clean Air acts in the 50's. Hallucegenia (talk) 06:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

And just compare how dark the house at the far end of the bridge was in 1963 compared to how it looks now. Hallucegenia (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder what could happened between 1779 and 1781. Were there so many extra works to finish for usage? Or what else postponed the opening. JSoos (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Records are poor.  But we know two things: the bridge itself was constructed more quickly than expected (this type of bridge goes up faster than masonry and especially masonry needing centring across a river.) and also they didn't start building the stone approach abutments until after the 'bridge' was completed. Unusually, this bridge design hadn't needed the abutments in place first.
Also any building work around the Severn was highly seasonal. The river varies a lot in height, labourers also moved between several jobs according to the seasons: farm workers had other work, ironworkers had a seasonal dependency on water power to work forges and blow furnaces.
The delay was more like one year than two though. The arch was designed, cast and fitted in 1778. At the same time the river wall and abutments of the arch (the low level towpath) were built, but not the tall approaches. Erection of the arch was carried out in 1779, once the river floods had lowered after the Winter. By the end of the Summer the arch was complete, but it was now also harvest season and workers were in short supply: the bridge company was speculative and not wealthy. The 1780 Summer season was spent building the approaches, and remember that the built-up area of Ironbridge that's now the market square just wasn't there in those days.  It was finished by the end of 1780 (I'm sure some traffic was getting across) but the ceremonial opening date was kept to New Year's Day. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! I really appreciate your detailed answer. True, we forgot sometimes, that human resources were completely different before the Industrial Revolution... And abutment built after the arch makes it sense! JSoos (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)