Talk:Bridge/Archive 3

WP guidelines do not require the use of these particular conventions, but applying conventions throughout an article improves the uniformity of the article, which is essential for meeting GA and FA criteria. For reference, some of the conventions currently used in this article are:

• American spellings
• Date format: 15 July 1975 (DMY); BC/AD
• Measurement units: Metric (Imperial may be in parenthesis)
• Sources: All sources are defined in the Sources section using a "Cite" template
• Citations use "sfn" or "harvnb" template; use "sfnRef" template for anonymous sources
• Bundle citations: multiple adjacent cites are bundled into a single [nn] superscript using Template:Multiref
• Book sources: include only one of ISBN, OCLC, LCCN, etc. No dashes in ISBNs.
• Sources: include author-link, if available
• Footnotes: any facts stated in an explanatory footnote require a citation. Same for image captions.
• Journal & magazine sources: include ISSN, if available (format nnnn-nnnn)
• No quotes in citations. If quote is needed: put into an efn footnote (or body text)
• All page numbers (or ranges) end with a period.
• Titles of all sources use Title Case (regardless of how the source capitalizes itself)
• All images aligned on right side
• Dashes use n-dash (not m-dash or hyphen)
• Do not use false titles (MOS:PSEUDOTITLE)
• Citations to sources with 10 or more pages require a specific page number
• Avoid the word "The" in front of a bridge's proper name, especially in image captions, unless it is required for grammar purposes.
• Use Oxford comma
• Follow WP:Summary style and use subarticles to keep this article consistent with WP:SIZERULE
• Spell-out numbers twelve and smaller
• Foreign words and phrases: italicize them, and put English translation in parenthesis after the foreign word/phrase (unless there is a good reason to do otherwise)
• Sources do not display "location" field/city.

If anyone thinks these should be amended or revised, please discuss. Noleander (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• A lot of the images feature quite spectacular bridges, crossing large waterways. But the most common bridges are a lot smaller, and used in highway interchanges, to cross railway lines, etc. This article could do with more representation of that.
• Bridge failures due to fire and ship strikes should be mentioned.
• Some images of bridge construction should be used.

Steelkamp (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

thanks for the excellent suggestions, I should be able to implement all of those. Noleander (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The first GA review at Talk:Bridge/GA1 had a large number of excellent suggestions. I'm gradually implementing most of them. There are some I am not implementing for various reasons. Here is a log of GA1 suggestions not implemented:

• There are some duplicate links, including abutment, aqueduct,... Duplicate links are permitted per MOS:REPEATLINK which says "Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence. Do not re-link in other sections if not contextually important there." My intention is: duplicate links are used in the article where the term appear a 2nd time, in a new major section, and it is important in that context. If there are any duplicate links that are not following that rule, then that is an oversight, and should be fixed.

• The hyphens around "which are critical elements of bridge construction" [several examples] .... could be commas. This is often a construct used by LLMs in 2025. The MOS permits dashes for parenthetical phrases (see WP:DASHVAR). My preference is to use n-dashes around most parenthetical phrases. Rarely, I use commas or parenthesis.

• There are many short paragraphs (particularly in the section Long, multi-span bridges). MOS:PARA does not prohibit short paragraphs, but says: Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose, each dealing with a particular point or idea. Single-sentence paragraphs can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, long paragraphs become hard to read. There are rare situations where "a particular point or idea." only requires one or two sentences. In those cases, merging that point into an adjacent (perhaps unrelated) paragraph may be worse than leaving it alone.

• The section Double-deck bridge has a main article link to List of multi-level bridges The section Bridge#Double-deck_bridge has a "see also" link to List of multi-level bridges, which is the best thing available, because WP does not have an article dedicated to that type of bridge. The template used is "see also", not "main"

• Suggest restructuring the article to show the flow more easily. For example, some of the history of pontoon bridges is included in the section on pontoon rather than history. That would not be ideal for the readers. The approach used in this article is to distribute the information about a given kind of bridge as follows:
  1. Section Bridge#History - A high-level overview of major bridge developments. Detailed history is found in subarticles such as History of bridges, Suspension bridge, Arch bridge, etc.
  2. Section Bridge#Types - Defines the major types of bridges; contains an overview of design principles and characteristics. Historical facts are not a focus, but may be mentioned in passing if important.
  3. Section Bridge#Construction - Contains details about how a given type of bridge is built. Historical facts are not a focus, but may be mentioned in passing if important.

In addition to those three locations (within this article), other per-bridge-type information is found in:

4. The WP article dedicated to the bridge kind, e.g. Suspension bridge ... these sub-articles contain (or should contain) detailed historical information about a particular kind of bridge (suspension/arch/truss/beam/cantilever/etc). This Bridge article does not try to replicate that detailed historical info, per WP:SUMMARY STYLE.

5. Record sizes are in lists named in the article's infobox, e.g. List of longest suspension bridge spans

6. The article History of bridges

In summary, the information about a particular kind of bridge (e.g. Suspension) is distributed through three locations in this article, plus other articles such as Suspension bridge, History of bridges, etc.

• Sometimes the article goes into high levels of detail. For example, "Bearings can be selected to permit small rotational or slipping movements in a specific direction, without permitting movements in other directions." That level of detail seems okay. Bearings are a critical part of most bridges, and the article only has a single paragraph (five sentences) on the topic.

• The majority of examples are also European (e.g. in the list of moveable bridges, 80% are from Europe, of double deck bridges, 60%, all the signature bridges listed are US or European). There are a small number like the Brooklyn Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge, Old London Bridge, and the Ponte Vecchio (plus Clifton Suspension Bridge if captions are included) that are repeated. Suggest replacing these and adding more examples from Africa and southeast Asia, which are currently unrepresented. This is an excellent suggestion, and I'm working on it now: I've replaced two key images near the top of the article (one USA, one Europe) with images of bridges from Africa and China.

Regarding the lists of bridges in the body text: unfortunately, most of the sources' authors are from US or Europe, and they tend to use bridge examples from US and Europe. The bridges listed in the article (e.g. in list of notable moveable bridges; or the list of notable signature bridges) are based on the bridges that the sources discuss. It would be a violation of WP:OR if I were to grab bridges from Asia or Africa (regardless how great I think the bridges are) and put them into a list of "notable" bridges without a source saying they are notable. That said, I'll continue looking for sources that single-out bridges in Africa or Asia, and use them to make the article more global.

• There is a tag saying that the article is at high risk for accruing too many images. Suggest culling but retaining the Featured images. Regarding the "tag", that is Template:Overillustration risk editnotice, which is an obsolete warning. I do not have permission to remove it; I asked for it to be removed, and the request was denied. It seems harmless to me, but it is confusing. It does not mean the article has too many images: instead it means that 20 years ago, some editors used the Bridge article as a photo gallery (which is why that template was added). The template is not longer relevant.

Regarding "... but retaining the Featured images" The photos in this article are selected to illustrate important facts ... "a picture is worth a thousand words". The MOS does not impose an upper limit on the number of images. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject. " If there are excessive or irrelevant images in this article, they can be identified and evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Bridges, by their very nature, are highly visual objects, and this article will - correctly - have a relatively large number of images.

• I believe that the restaurant on the Will Rogers Archway over the Oklahoma Turnpike was the first highway service station. Please confirm and if so add that from a verified source I had a hard time finding sources for rest-stop bridges. The existing source for the Will Rogers Archway is marginal: the Oklahoma tourism bureau. It is RS for the existence of the Will Rogers Archway, but I'm not comfortable using it for the assertion that it is the first rest-stop bridge in the world. I'll keep looking for additional sources.

Those are the suggestions from GA1 that are not being implemented. All the other suggestions are useful & helpful, and are being implemented. Noleander (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I propose to remove the "Overillustration risk edit notice" from this Bridge article. This notice is displayed at the top of the edit page when any editor edits the Bridge article. The notice says:

This article is at high risk for accruing too many images. Please prioritize recognized high-quality images with a strong connection to the body text, and remove others. Avoid having similar images and sand­wich­ing text be­tween im­ages. Tag the page with Template:Too many photos if needed.

Justifications for removing the notice:

1. This notice is rather rare and obscure, and I believe there are only a dozen Wikipedia articles that use it.
2. The notice is no longer needed. It apparently was added many years ago, when WP editors often treated articles as image galleries. A review of this article's history shows that there have been no issues with excessive images being for at least the past five years.
3. Several Wikipedia lists are now available which hold images of bridges, including List of bridge types, List of longest suspension bridge spans, List of longest cable-stayed bridge spans, etc. These lists reduce the temptation for editors to add images to the Bridge article.
4. The notice makes editing difficult on mobile devices. I'm planning on improving this Bridge article to WP:Good article status, which will require making hundreds of edits to the article. I often edit on mobile devices, and the notice occupies a huge part of the screen display, making editing difficult. I realize this hardship may be unique to me, so I propose to revisit the removal in one year (Summer 2026) - if, at that time, there are any issues with excessive images, then the notice would be restored, no questions asked.

Consensus is required before this notice can be removed. So, if anyone has any thoughts on the matter, your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Noleander (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I do think a notice that asks editors to consider gaining consensus for prominent image changes should remain, lest we have a constantly-changing rotation of images. SounderBruce 00:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

How many images are too many? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

How is a bridge distinguished from structures such as stepping stones, culverts, causewats? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out some areas where the article could be potentially improved. Regarding your question "How is a bridge distinguished from structures such as stepping stones, culverts, causewats?" I don't recall any sources comparing bridges with culverts, so I cannot comment on that (or, I did, it would violate the WP:OR policy).

Regarding causeways, that is covered in the section Bridge#Long,_multi-span_bridge where the article has: A causeway is a raised road, usually built over a lake or other body of water. Some causeways are bridges, such as the 38.4 km Lake Pontchartrain Causeway in Louisiana; but many – such as the King Fahd Causeway in Saudi Arabia – are partially or entirely built on solid dirt or rock embankments. There are several sources cited in that paragraph.

Regarding stepping stones, the source for that is Brown 2005, which has "In either case, however, if some conveniently flat rocks were at hand, and if the water was shallow enough, the rocks could be dragged in to form mid-stream stepping stones; and if the water was too deep for this, they could be piled up to make primitive piers..." (p 13); and Other, quite different types of bridge became important ingredients in the aesthetic, philosophical, and spiritual unity that constituted the Chinese garden. Sometimes only simple arrays of stepping stones were used, but a more elaborate structure..." (p 40). From the context, it is clear the author is presenting stepping stones as a sort of proto-bridge, although that is only my interpretation. Since the mention of stepping stones in the article is apparently confusing to readers, I'll remove it.

PS: The article is in the middle of a WP:Good Article review now, so it would be helpful if you posted any queries here in the Talk page (before adding any tags such as "clarification needed"). Of course, you are free to add any tags you like. Noleander (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I undid some formatting changes to reference section; the original layout seems cleaner & tidier. Is there a MOS requirement for the "30 em" field? Pininging @Rfl0216:. Noleander (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Bridge

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on nominating it for Featured Article status. I believe the article nearly meets the FA criteria, but I'd like an independent editor to assess whether it is FA quality. In particular: is the prose professional and engaging? Are there any aspects of bridges that you feel the article is overlooking? Thanks! Noleander (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Noleander: perhaps a brief mention of the military importance of bridges? There have been many Battle of the Bridge (disambiguation). Capturing bridges, or destroying them to prevent capture, has been important in many campaigns (Operation Market Garden, Battle of Remagen). MKFI (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion, I'll add some more (the article already has Xerxes floating bridge over the Hellespont). Thanks! Noleander (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The large blank area below Signature Bridges should be fixed with more prose or re-aligning images with a gallery section. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not seeing a large blank area on my tablet or desktop. What platform are you seeing it on? Phone? Noleander (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see what's happening. I'm not viewing on phone either.

On desktop, the standard logged out view is fine, but enabling wide view with small text produces the large blank area, as does being logged in and using the Vector legacy skin on desktop browser, as I do. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking down that down. I am able to repeat the problem by changing my preferences to 2010 Vector legacy. I'll do some research and determine the best approach for solving the issue. Noleander (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments from Anne drew

In this section, I will give a top-to-bottom review of the article. For each piece of feedback, I'll try to reference a relevant policy, guideline, or FA criteria. Under each piece of feedback I'll leave an empty row for any discussion.

History

More information Excerpt, Relevant standards ...

Excerpt	Relevant standards	Review comment
The earliest forms of bridges were simple structures used to cross swamps and creeks, consisting of wooden boardwalks or logs.	1.c: well-researched	This seems to slightly contradict History of bridges which says the earliest examples were stepping stones. Obviously if History of bridges has it wrong, you're not responsible for fixing that article, just flagging the discrepancy. Also Bridge also seems to be missing the term "stepping stones" entirely.
Pilings – which are critical elements of bridge construction – were used in Switzerland around 4,000 BC to support houses built over water.	1.a: well-written	This makes it sound like these ancient Swiss houses built over water were somehow also bridges, London Bridge style. But I think you're just explaining the development of a key bridge-building technology, originally used for a different purpose. Consider rephrasing to clarify - something like: Pilings, which are critical elements of bridge construction, were originally developed for Swiss stilt houses around 4,000 BC.
Several corbel arch bridges were built c. 13th century BC	1.a: well-written	This is the third date style used in this section (6000 years old in the footnote, 4,000 BC, and then 13th century BC). Not sure if this is strictly incorrect per MOS:DATE, but I think it would be more readable if you revised one or two of these for consistency.
which is still in existence	1.a: well-written	Total nit, but you could simplify this: which still exists
Sennacherib constructed stone aqueducts	1.b: comprehensive	A bit more context here would be nice: Assyrian king Sennacherib constructed stone aqueducts
mentions the construction of dams and bridges	1.a: well-written	Bridges are what we care about in this article. Let's phrase this accordingly: mentions the construction of bridges and dams
The ancient Romans were prodigious bridge builders, renowned for their advanced engineering techniques and durable construction methods.	MOS:WEASEL	This sounds a little weaselly with the "prodigious" and "renowned" wording. The prose would be more encyclopedic if it just stated the facts that led to their renown, e.g. The ancient Romans constructed numerous durable and architecturally advanced bridges, many examples of which survive...
In Medieval Europe, bridge design capabilities declined after the fall of Rome, but revived in the High Middle Ages in France, England, and Italy with the construction of bridges such as the Pont d'Avignon, bridges of the Durance river, the Old London Bridge, and the Ponte Vecchio in Florence.	1.a: well-written	This is a very long sentence. Consider splitting it up into smaller sentences.
Paris' Pont Neuf	MOS:POSS	I believe this should be Paris's
A number of bridges, both for military and commercial purposes, were constructed in India by the Mughal administration in India.	1.a: well-written	in India is duplicated. Also A number of isn't adding anything. We can simplify this: Military and commercial bridges were constructed in India by the Mughal administration.
In the late 1700s	MOS:CENTURY	Again we're mixing styles - previously in the section we have In 15th and 16th century Europe. Also the section headings use the 1400 to 1900 style. Later in the section we have the text 1800's. Sounds like the 18th century style is preferred by the MOS.
Suspension bridge spans now exceed 2 kilometers	MOS:NOW	We should date this statement lest it become outdated. Also this is a short paragraph, we can afford to call out the current record holder for span length. Secondly, this seems out of order. Why are we jumping from the 1800s, to a 2022 bridge, and then back to WWII?
1900 to present	1.b: comprehensive	This section is quite short for more than a century with huge innovations in bridge building. I'm sure it can be expanded. It seems like there is almost no information from the 21st century?
A recent innovation	MOS:NOW	The 1990s don't feel that recent, really, but I suppose that's subjective. Also it has the same time-sensitivity issue as above. Consider rephrasing.
Profession	2.b: appropriate structure	Debatable whether this really belongs in the History section. The rest of the section is a chronology of bridge building, and it's a bit jarring to start reading about this specific subtopic. I would consider either: Integrating this content into the chronology; or Moving this section to a more fitting parent section, e.g. "Design" I might be way off on this tbh, it just stood out to me as a strange organizational quirk.
The profession of civil engineering in general – and bridge building in particular – began to be formalized in the 1700s when a school of engineering was created in France within the Corps des Ponts et Chaussées at the École de Paris, under the direction of Jacques Gabriel.	1.a: well-written	Long sentence, let's split it up.
Etymology	2.b: appropriate structure	Again, I question whether this belongs in the History section. I think typically this would be a top-level section near the beginning of the article.

Close

Types

More information Excerpt, Relevant standards ...

Excerpt	Relevant standards	Review comment
Canal bridges are used in a canal system to carry boats across a valley or ravine. Conservationists use wildlife overpasses to reduce habitat fragmentation and animal-vehicle collisions.	1.a: well-written	This is a bit of a jarring transition. I would make these sentences transition into eachother more naturally, or split them into separate paragraphs.
When the arch is semicircular, as used in Roman bridges,	1.a: well-written	Copyedit suggestion: When the arch is semicircular, as in ancient Roman bridges,
Modern suspension bridges usually consist of two or more large cables passing over one or more towers.	1.b: comprehensive	Can we start this section with a definition of suspension bridges as a whole? It seems odd that the first sentence just describes modern suspension bridges.
Cable-stayed bridges offer some advantages over suspension bridges	1.a: well-written	Might be good to group this with the last sentence, since they seem to serve similar purposes (comparing advantages of suspension vs cable-stay bridges)
See also: List of bridge types		This should probably be moved to the top of the "Types" section (and maybe use the "Main article" template)
Main article: Moveable bridges		This is good, but we should be consistent with the other sections. Truss bridge, suspension bridge, and other sections don't have this template.
"Movable bridge" section	1.a: well-written	There's heavy use of en-dashes in this section, disproportionate to the rest of the article. Consider using commas to separate some of the clauses, or break up sentences with lots of clauses into multiple sentences.
Double-deck bridges permit two different kinds of traffic to be safely carried, by separating, for example, motor vehicles from pedestrians or railways.	1.a: well-written	Complex sentence structure, I'd recommend making this two sentences, e.g.: Double-deck bridges permit two different kinds of traffic to be safely carried. For example, motor vehicles might be separated from pedestrians or railways.
Some causeways are bridges... but many... are partially or entirely built on solid dirt or rock embankments.		I'm curious about the definition of a bridge now, and whether the "boardwalks" mentioned in the antiquity section really count as bridges. What about the stepping stones mentioned in History of bridges or things like the land bridges? No actionable feedback here, just a thought.

Close

Requirements

More information Excerpt, Relevant standards ...

Excerpt	Relevant standards	Review comment
When designing a bridge to traverse a specific obstacle, the designer must identify a design that meets several requirements.	1.a: well-written	Can edit this for brevity: When designing a bridge to traverse a specific obstacle, the designer must meet several requirements.
Wood bridges may have a service life of ten to 50 years.	1.a: well-written	Feels strange to mix words and figures like this. Consider changing to one of: 10 to 50 years or ten to fifty years
Many bridges are utilitarian in appearance, but in some cases the appearance of the bridge is a major factor in selecting the design from available candidates.	1.a: well-written	I think this prose can be tightened up; it's very wordy for the idea it is conveying. Consider something like: Most bridges prioritize function over form, but appearance sometimes becomes the deciding factor when choosing among viable designs.
The art historian Dan Cruickshank notes that	1.a: well-written	Should be past tense I think
A representative bidge design guidebook recommends that bridge designs strive for a simple shape...	1.a: well-written	I'm not sure what "a representative bridge design guidebook" means exactly.
Wood is an inexpensive material that is rarely used for modern motor vehicle roads.	1.a: well-written	Why are we talking about roads and not viaducts more specifically?
Wood is used in bridges primarily in a beam structure or truss structure	1.a: well-written	This doesn't flow well imo. Maybe this works better: Wood is primarily used in beam or truss bridges
Iron is relatively brittle, and has been superseded by the much stronger steel for all but ornamental uses.	1.a: well-written	We use the word "superseded" in the previous paragraph. Let's vary the word choice a bit.
Material	2.b: appropriate structure	Stepping back, I wonder if this section really belongs under "Requirements"? Generally the material used is a means to an end, rather than the ends themselves. Maybe it should be moved under "Design" or "Construction"?
Specifications and standards	1.b: comprehensive, WP:GLOBAL	This section is great, but it feels too focused on the Western world. If we're going to mention bridge-building standards, we ought to cover major countries in Asia, South America, etc.

Close

Design

More information Excerpt, Relevant standards ...

Excerpt	Relevant standards	Review comment
After the requirements of a bridge are established, the bridge designer uses structural analysis methods to identify candidate designs.	1.a: well-written	No issue here - I just like how this transitions smoothly from the previous section. Nice writing!
See also: Structural load	MOS:LINKONCE	We don't need both this template and the wikilink in the prose. I recommend removing one or the other.
...represented by the term structural load. The structural load is usually divided...	1.a: well-written	Some redundancy with "structural load" being mentioned twice. Can rephrase: ...represented by the term structural load. This is usually divided...
...which encompasses all forces applied by the bridge's surroundings, including wind, rain, snow, earthquakes, mudslides, water currents, flooding, soil subsidence, frost heaving, temperature fluctuations, and collisions (such as a ship striking the pier of a bridge).	1.a: well-written	Long list - we can summarize some of this. e.g. weather rather than wind, rain, snow
The severity is determined by a return period	1.b: comprehensive	Can we explain what this term means in the prose?
Alternatively, loads may be determined by using weigh-in-motion technology to measure real-world traffic on existing bridges that experience traffic comparable to that the proposed bridge will experience.	1.a: well-written	Not sure this sentence is professional-level prose. Example rephrasing: Alternatively, weigh-in-motion technology can measure loads on existing bridges with comparable traffic patterns, providing real-world data for the proposed bridge design.

Close

Construction

More information Excerpt, Relevant standards ...

Excerpt	Relevant standards	Review comment
The structural elements of a bridge are generally divided into the superstructure and the substructure. The superstructure consists...	1.a: well-written	This paragraph discusses superstructure then substructure, and the following sections discuss substructure then superstructure. It would flow more logically if the order was consistent.
The first elements built are typically the footings and abutments, which are often large blocks of reinforced concrete, entirely or partially buried underground, which support the entire weight of the bridge, and transfer the weight to the subsoil.	1.a: well-written	This is a long sentence which should probably be broken up.

Close

Operations

More information Excerpt, Relevant standards ...

Excerpt	Relevant standards	Review comment
In the United States, 25% of all bridges failed during the 1870s.	1.a: well-written	This seems a little ambiguous. Is it saying that of all bridge failures in the US, 25% occured in the 1870s? Or is it saying that 25% of bridges in the 1870s US failed? I assume it means the former.

Close

In culture

More information Excerpt, Relevant standards ...

Excerpt	Relevant standards	Review comment
There are many stories, mostly apocryphal, relating bridges to Christian saints.	1.b: comprehensive	Would love a bit more context here. What do saints have to do with bridges exactly?
In culture	1.b: comprehensive	This section is a nice overview of bridges in literature, poetry, and paintings. I wonder if it should also include a few other mediums. e.g. mention the acclaimed film The Bridge over the River Kwai, or the song Bridge over Troubled Water. I also wonder about metaphors this section doesn't mention, like the idea of burning bridges or building bridges.

Close

Lead

More information Excerpt, Relevant standards ...

Excerpt	Relevant standards	Review comment
The history of bridge building reflects the evolution of humankind's construction technologies.		Strong start to the paragraph, but the rest of the paragraph almost exclusively talks about building materials, and not much about other technological advancements.
The design of a new bridge must meet many requirements, such as connecting to the transportation network, crossing the obstacle with necessary clearances, and providing safe transport for its users.	1.a: well-written	This seems to imply that connecting to a transportation network is a mandatory requirement, when it isn't necessarily (e.g. for aquaducts).
fire resistance	MOS:LEADREL	I don't think this appears in the article body
including wind, snow, earthquakes, water currents, flooding, soil subsidence, temperature fluctuations, and collisions	1.a: well-written	Quite a long and detailed list, especially for the lead. Consider summarizing or combining some of the list items.
Lead	2.a: lead	Not sure the lead summarizes all the article content adequately. I don't see any summary of the "Operations" or "In culture" sections, and little on the "Construction" section.

Close

Overall review

Overall a very nice article, Noleander! I've pointed out a few areas for improvement above, mostly concerning prose quality, MOS-compliance, and some larger structural feedback. I hope you find my input useful, but please take it with a grain of salt since I'm new to both the PR and FA processes. Thanks, Anne drew (talk · contribs) 20:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Anne drew - Thank-you so much for the useful and thorough review. I'll go thru the items in the next few days: based on a quick glance, virtually all items look like valuable suggestions that will improve the article. Much appreciated!! Noleander (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)