Talk:Rigid-frame bridge

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 19 November 2014 by reviewer MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs).

Bridges and Tunnels Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Overall, this is a good article. I am surprised that there is not already an article for Rigid-Frame bridges, so this is a good find. The structure is the article is good and seems to be consistent with other articles with similar topics. The article is sufficiently descriptive and organized well.

I do have a few suggestions. First, the gallery photos have fairly large borders. I looked at the way you implemented them, and I don't see any obvious way to change that, but there may be a way to do it.

Take a look at this sentence: " Additional benefits are that less space is required for the approaches and structural details for where the deck bears on the abutments are not necessary". It doesn't flow very well, but I think it could be fixed just by adding a comma after approaches. One option you could consider for listing the advantages and disadvantages is to make numbered lists. This would clearly list all advantages and disadvantages in a way that makes them easy to find.

Other than that, I think it is a great article that meets all the requirements of the assignment.

Soper103 (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)=Soper103[reply]

(taylor's edit)

This article is just about done. The format, readability and level of information are all very good. I like your liberal use of linking words to other wikipedia articles, and makes me feel like reading this will help expand my knowledge not only on this topic.

As for suggestions:

I would suggest trying to reword your 4th sentence in the second paragraph of history. I think it could either be split into two shorter sentences with some slightly more individually descriptive terminology, or just differentiated better.
You may want to include typical bridge lengths for each design, following the precedent you lay in the last sentece of the singe span section.
In your recent advancements section, especially the first paragraph, you use 'this' a lot. Try to talk about specifics more.

Overall, very well done!