Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulteney Bridge/archive1

Pulteney Bridge

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on expanding it, improving the referencing etc. and would like suggestions about what else would be needed before it could be nominated for Good Article. Thanks, — Rod ^talk 18:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is an attractive subject. My first reaction was that, at under 1000 words, the article is quite short, so there may be issues of comprehensiveness. A few specific observations:

Image licencing

File:Malton Pulteney Bridge 1785.JPG: I believe that the correct licence should be PD-Art, not PD-US.
Same is true of File:Malton-pulteney-bridge-in-1779.jpg Except that, in this case, the source indicates "© Victoria Gallery"

Design and construction

The first two paragraphs are more background than "Design and construction", and could I believe be expanded.
For example, no year or date is given for the design or construction until the end of the section where, incidentally, the information given is different from that given in the infobox. However, no details at all are given as to the period of conception, the time between the formulation of the original idea and the start of construction. How long was this period? Five years, ten?
Some further backgound info on Sir William Pulteney would be useful. Who was he? Why did he want to build a suburb on his estate?
"Their involvement is recalled by Great Pulteney Street in Bathwick, reputed to be the longest boulevard of its kind in Europe..." Uncited information
Paty's plans were "rejected and adapted by the brothers Robert and James Adam. Should there be a comma after "rejected"? Surely it was for Pulteney to reject the plans, rather than the brothers.
I'm also a bit muddled by the statement that, having adapted Paty's plans, Robert Adam was then "involved in further designs for the bridge". There seems to be part of the story missing here – what happened to the adapted Paty plans?
There is an unnecessary "But" ("But Adam's design more closely followed...")

Development

"In 1792 alterations to enlarge the shops, combining the original 16 shops into six large ones, and widening it to 18 metres (58 ft), which marred the elegance of the façades." The sentence does not parse.
"Some even painted advertisements on the outside of their shops affecting the view from the river and Grand Parade." Sentence needs more punctuation, and should lose the judgemental "even"
What was the nature of the 1975 restoration work?
When was the Grade I listed designation given?
What has happened post-2009 to the pedestrianisation plans?

Architecture

A rather meagre section

What are "high segmental arches"
The British spelling is "storey" not "story"
There are lots of scraps of information, but nothing solid. For example "Further restoration was undertaken in 1975"; or "The appearance of the bridge changed when the weir was constructed in 1979."
Could we have some comments on the architecture of the bridge, as recorded over the years by expert commentators?
The Les Miserables snippet is unimportant trivia.

My chief worry is that, overall, the article does not give enough information about what is, after all, an important architectural feature. I would recommend some content expansion, along the lines indicated in my comments, before considering a GA nomination. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments. I have acted on many of them but I'm having trouble finding suitable comments on the architecture.— Rod ^talk 14:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]