Wikipedia:Peer review/Monnow Bridge/archive1

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to take it to FA and am keen for feedback, prior to doing so. The bridge is important in its own right, as the only example of its type in Britain. It also has some importance for Wikipedia, as the symbol of Monmouth, the World's First Wikipedia Town. Any, and all, comments welcome.

Thanks, KJP1 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Nev1

• I'm reading the article at the moment and will leave some comments tomorrow (Wednesday). Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@KJP1: First of all, well done on a thorough and well rounded article. It’s a very good quality article, with plenty of additional information for context. I really like the way the text is structured, with the purpose being discussed in the history, an interesting section on depictions in art, and rounding it off with the architecture.

The lead does a good job of summarising the article – striking a good balance between describing the bridge’s history and giving some additional context.

The history section is comprehensive and I like the way it blends a history of the site’s interpretation and study towards the latter part of the section. Again, you give good context to understand the subject, an example of which is when explaining the uncertainty of the construction date. I have a few suggestions for improvements:

• “Some sources suggest that the earlier wooden bridge…” is it primary or secondary sources that make the suggestion?

• Y Done. By expansion. The first is a near contemporary source, the Flores Historiarum, but Rowlands makes clear that it's not certain Roger of Wendover really meant Monnow Bridge. Later historians, with the exception of Kissack, seem to agree that he did. I hope I've made this clear.

• When murage is mentioned, the term is linked but I’m wondering if it’s worth have a very brief explanation within the article.

*N Not done, yet, but you're quite right and I'll attend to it.

• Y Now Done, by the addition of an explanatory sentence. And a note.

• Where it says “The grant allowed the townspeople to build the town walls and gates for defence and protection”. Urban defences also helped control traffic, making it easier to levy taxes, as well as acting as a status symbol. This is acknowledged later in the section where Bagnall-Oakley questions how useful the gatehouse would have been as a defence. It’s a tricky one to strike balance, but I’d be tempted just to write “The grant allowed the townspeople to build the town walls and gates, including the construction of the gate-tower”.

• Y Done.

• “the enceinte encircling” – I’m not keen on enceinte as it’s a bit of a jargon-y term. How about “The gate formed part of the circuit of walls/urban defences encircling Monmouth”?

• Y Done. And removed the jargon!

• When discussing the 1889-1902 conservation, it would be worth specifying who carried it out.

• Y Done.

I also like the mention of the Glyndwr rebellion though Monmouth wasn’t directly involved.

The depictions in art section isn’t something I’ve seen very often but adds a nice dimension to the article. I might adopt this approach myself in future. In particular the role the 18th-century depictions played in encouraging tourism to south Wales is good context.

With the architecture section I only have a few small points. For the conversions, would it be more usual to have it in feet and inches rather than as a decimal? Also, by any chance did the gatehouse have a fireplace? It’s interesting that it was provided with a garderobe, clearly people were expected to man the gatehouse for a while. I particularly like the conclusion to the architecture section. When I put these together it can sometimes feel like the article hasn’t finished properly, but the conclusion about the architectural importance of this structures ties the article together very nicely.

• N Feet and inches - Sure you're right but the technicalities of Wiki often confound me. I'll have a go.

*N Fireplace - Rowlands', spectacularly detailed, study doesn't appear to mention one, but I shall re-read to make sure. In the Cotman drawing, is that a chimney on the left-hand side of the roof of the extension?

This C19 drawing clearly shows a chimney, so fireplace there must surely have been.

• N Not Done. Have re-read the Rowlands and can't see any mention of a fireplace. Certainly seems there was one but I can't find a source so left out.

• Any idea where the Old Red Sandstone was sourced from? It might be that the source material doesn’t mention it, but I thought I’d ask. English Heritage did a survey of building stone some six or seven years ago; I’m not sure if Cadw did something similar.

• Y Done. As far as I can. Rowlands isn't that specific but he does say within 10 miles of Monmouth - probably the Forest of Dean?

In terms of the bibliography, it looks good and in particular it’s good to see Kissack and Rowlands used. Having read through there aren’t any glaring gaps, but since the aim is to take the article to FAC (and I think it’s pretty much there) you might want to take a look at Soulsby (1983) The Towns of Medieval Wales, Creighton & Higham (2005) Medieval Town Walls, Harrison (2010), Barley (1975) and Bond (1987) and see if they have anything extra to add. I’ve not had a chance to check myself – I have a copy of Creighton & Higham buried somewhere but double checking those sources would help meet firmly nail down WPFA? 1c, even if there is nothing to add.

*N Not done yet - but all excellent suggestions. The Rylands doesn't have Soulsby or Creighton & Higham, but Cardiff University does, so I've sent my brother off to their archives. I'll go through the sources you've kindly provided to check them too. KJP1 (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Y In progress; now have references from Barley and Bond. My brother's scanning Soulsby and Creighton tomorrow. Any chance you could relist the Harrison PDF. For some reason, it won't let me load it. Ignore, I'm an idiot - I realise I've already cited it. Please ignore my ignore - I think I've cited a different Harrison article. KJP1 (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC) And now have cites from Soulsby and Higham. As you thought, they didn't have much, but it does take us closer to having a comprehensive review of the sources. I'm just waiting for the Harrison, which the Rylands does have, and then I think I shall push it to FAC. Many thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Y Now Done. Cites from Harrison, Harrison again, Soulsby and Creighton.

And finally, the article is well written which made it a pleasure to read. Nev1 (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm really glad you liked it, and very appreciative of the time taken to read it through and provide such a detailed review. I'll pick up the points above that I've not yet addressed in the next week or so (depending on when the books arrive), and then push it on to FA. Thanks and regards and if ever I can return the favour... KJP1 (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda

I loved a person who loved bridges and isited some in Wales, so here I am, with only minor comments ;) - I took the liberty to make some styling suggestions, - revert if you don't like it.

Lead

• Clearly written, with some phrasing that I should remember for my articles! + I learnt "pedestrianisation".

*Appreciated.

TOC

• Nice and clear, but how about first architecture, then Art?

• N Not Done. I see exactly where you're coming from. The Architecture section is more important than the Art section. But I quite like the Architecture section as a finis. That said, very happy to switch if there's a consensus so to do.

20th ...

• "Having previously referenced the bridge in her wider study, The Fortifications of Monmouth, published in 1896; the local antiquarian Mary Ellen Bagnall-Oakeley published" - takes a long time until her name comes, - split?

• Y Done.

• "in 1721 The Society of Antiquaries" comes as a late surprise ;)

• N Not Done. Absolutely see what you mean re. chronology, but I think it fits here in terms of narrative flow.

• first 2014, then Millenium, then 1996?

• Y Done.

Architecture

• Perhaps split para about graded building, including the 1996 potential from the 20th ....

• Y Done. I agree it does fit better here.

See also

• I wonder if the article could be linked more prominently. Look for example how "Mass by W. A. Mozart" is displayed here.

• Sorry, don't get this point. Linked more prominently to what? Could you clarify?

Thank you for a good read, and good luck with heading for FA! I like the referencing style and layout of the refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Gerda, appreciate the input. I'll have a look at the comments and get back but it'll be a day or so due to off-Wiki commitments. Glad you enjoyed the article. KJP1 (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Now addressed, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. The comparison to Mozart: in the mass article, the third line says prominently that it is a mass by Mozart, - I wonder if something on top of the bridge's ib could say "bridge in Wales". Down as a See also, it seems lost. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Now, I get what you mean. Let me have a look. KJP1 (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Copying the Mozart, I've tried to put it in the ib, below caption, as type. But it's not showing???? KJP1 (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the ib used, probably it has no |type=. Musical composition also had no one, until we found it useful for pieces where the title alone doesn't even say that it IS a musical composition, such as some Swedish hymn name. You could argue on the template talk that such a think would be useful, or you could add another line "small" to the name field, compare what Brianboulton did here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)