Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bridge/archive1

Image review

• Captions would benefit from editing for style and grammar

Thanks for that advice: I went through all the captions and improved five of them. I believe they now all comply with the FA prose/MOS/grammar expectations. Noleander (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• File:Pont_du_Gard_BLS.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, this should include an explicit tag for the bridge

Done. I added the panorama template {{FoP-USonly|France}} to the version of the image in English WP at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pont_du_Gard_BLS.jpg That template says the image should not be hosted at WikiCommons, yet a copy of the image is in the Commmons at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pont_du_Gard_BLS.jpg. I'm not sure how it got there ... maybe it is because the bridge is 2,000 years old, so the panorama rules are relaxed in France? Regardless, the article is using the English WP version, and I added the Panorama template to that page. Noleander (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Also noting that there appear to be a fair number of MOS issues throughout - would suggest taking a look at that before someone reviews the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria. Could you help me out by giving me hints on the MOS issues. I'm not aware of any, and I don't recall recent reviewers mentioning any. Noleander (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Examples: avoid placing links right next to each other; avoid repeating links in the same section; stick to one variety of English (eg there's currently both metres and meters). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria - Thanks for the feedback, I'm working on these MOS issues now. I've fixed the "metres" spelling, and the repeated links. Regarding the other issue "placing links right next to each other", are you referring to (a) two adjacent links like chess tournament (discouraged by MOS:SEAOFBLUE); or (b) adjacent links in a comma-separated list, such as ... viaducts, aqueducts, trestles, movable bridges, pontoons, and portable military bridges. I cannot find any (a) style consecutive links in the article (but maybe there is one or two somewhere?) As for comma-separated links: most of those are the first occurrence of the item in the section, and MOS:BUILD suggests that the first occurrence should be linked. But I can remove the links from those comma-separated lists, and instead link at the 2nd occurrence. Is the issue you saw (a) or (b) or both? Noleander (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

(a) is the more significant issue, but fortunately less frequent. (b) is less problematic, although where these linklists can be reframed I would suggest doing so. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I found the one instance of (a) in the article and fixed it. Regarding (b), I'll take care of that also. Noleander (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Support from ErnestKrause

Reporting from the Peer Review for the article recently completed where I participated and put the nominator through multiple comments and corrections; the article is worthy of promotion here. Even if you are not able to do a full review here, then it is still worthwhile to just take a look at the impressive illustrations added by the nominator midway through the article. Nicely done graphics and supportive text. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Anne drew

Lead

• The first paragraph seems too list-heavy. It lists bridge obstacles, functions, types, forms, and materials in rapid succession rather than providing a high-level overview. This results in a repetitive rhythm that makes for dry reading. It might be better to focus on the general definition and function of a bridge first before getting into the specifics later on in the lead. Compare this to the first paragraph in Britannica or even Grokipedia, which provide a high-level overview without overwhelming the reader.

Yeah, you're right. I had a feeling it was too list-y. I'll fix it. Noleander (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I've revised the lead, and eliminated the lists of 4 or more items. I still have a couple of sentences that enumerate 2 or 3 things, but I think it is tolerable now. I looked at Grokipedia and got a couple of ideas for slightly tweaking the wording in a couple of places (but I did not copy any AI phrasing intact!!) I looked at the Britannica article (which is an excellent source I used for Bridge, and is written by a famous engineer) but its lead is a bit subjective & opinionated; and some of his broad/overview statements are not repeated by other sources; but it was still useful to see how a lead could be structured without resorting to ugly, boring lists. Let me know if you think the lead still needs more work, and I can have another go at it. Noleander (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks much better! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

History

• I love the Pont du Gard photograph - great use of a featured picture!

Structure and form

• In addition to being categorized by usage, bridges can be classified by their structure or form. Quite a short paragraph at the top of the "Structure and form" section. I wonder if it can be expanded to feel less abrupt, or if it's needed at all?

Done. That is a good point. I deleted that sentence, and moved it up to the introduction of the "Structure and form" section (merged it with the sentence that was there before). So it should be cleaner & more sensible now. Noleander (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Design

• Wood is an inexpensive material that is rarely used for modern roadway bridges. This is a funny sentence. You'd think wood being inexpensive would result in more usage. Can we connect the two ideas of "wood is inexpensive" and "wood isn't used in roadway bridges" more clearly? Or maybe they don't belong in the same sentence.

Done. Sentence now reads Wood is an inexpensive, renewable resource with a high strength-to-weight ratio, but it is rarely used for modern roadway bridges because it is prone to degradation from the environment, and is much weaker than steel or concrete. Noleander (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• The Iron Bridge in Shropshire, England, completed in 1781, is the first major bridge made entirely of cast iron. Can we move this image down to sit next to the paragraph discussing iron?

Done. Noleander (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

• ...many roadway bridges are built entirely of concrete using a beam structure, often of the box girder variety. If they use metal girders or steel reinforcements, it seems a little misleading to say they are "built entirely of concrete".

Done. Changed to Concrete is commonly used in modern bridges, and many roadway bridges are built primarily with a reinforced concrete beam structure, often of the box girder variety. Noleander (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Construction

• This effect can be mitigated by placing a cofferdam around the footings, or surrounding the footings with rip-rap. Can we explain the term rip-rap per MOS:JARGON?

Done. Changed to This effect can be mitigated by placing a cofferdam around the footings, or surrounding the footings with large, carefully placed rocks.

• Bridges with supports in navigable waterways should be designed to withstand reasonable ship strikes. "Reasonable" is a curious word choice - no ship strikes are really "reasonable" I'd reckon. Maybe "typical" or "unexceptional" would work better?

Done. Changed to Bridges with supports in navigable waterways are designed to withstand ship strikes up to a specific, predefined magnitude.

Operation and financing

• Degradation can come from a variety of sources: expansion/contraction from freeze/thaw cycles, rain, oxidation of steel, salt, carbonatation of concrete, vehicular traffic, corrosion, mechanical abrasion, poor bridge design, and improper repair procedures. This list is very long, and seems to conflate external causes (like traffic or rain) with physical mechanisms (like abrasion). Also it seems like there is some redundancy, e.g. listing 'oxidation of steel' alongside 'corrosion.'

Done. Split into two sentences, and removed oxidation/corrosion duplication. Now reads: Degradation can come from environmental sources such as expansion/contraction from freeze/thaw cycles, rain, oxidation of steel, and sea spray. Human activities may also cause damage, such as vehicular traffic, mechanical abrasion, poor bridge design, and improper repair procedures. Noleander (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Various electrical tests, such as permeability and resistance, can give insight into the condition of surface concrete. Permeability and resistance seem to be physical properties, not tests. Maybe "...such as those assessing permeability and resistance..." would make more sense?

Done. Used the suggested wording. Noleander (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Bridge failures are caused by a variety of factors, which can be categorized as natural factors (flood, scour, earthquake, landslide, and wind) and human factors Nitpick, but we use "factors" a lot here. It can probably be reworded, e.g. Bridge failures have a variety of causes...

Done. Used the suggested wording. (@Anne drew: - Thanks for all the help!!) Noleander (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Society and culture

• Global warming can be exacerbated by the creation of a new bridge, because bridges often utilize large amounts of concrete, which is a major source of carbon dioxide, a gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect. I'm glad you added this info, but the sentence feels a little long and awkward. Can it be tightened up at all?

Done. Reworded to Global warming can be exacerbated by the creation of a new bridge, because the production of concrete significantly contributes to the greenhouse effect. And I moved the carbon dioxide info into a footnote. Noleander (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Corruption is endemic in the construction industry (including bridge building) and associated bribes and inefficiencies produce negative societal and economic consequences. Consider wikilinking corruption and bribery.

Done. Noleander (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Although bridges can boost the economy of the surrounding region, they also increase environmental pollution proportionally. We go from carbon emissions, to economic impacts, to pollution. Consider moving the global warming and pollution ideas next to eachother so it flows more logically.

Done. Noleander (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Optional ideas: I still think this section could mention common phrases involving bridges (building bridges / burning bridges) - but perhaps that would be too English-centric. Also consider including films that involve bridges, e.g. The Bridge on the River Kwai.

I agree these sorts of cultural tidbits would be interesting. You mentioned them before, but I was unable to find source that would defend against claims of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. That said, I'll look again and see if I can find sources that talk about bridges playing a key role in idioms, movies, novels, etc. Note that the article does mention two novels already: The Bridge on the Drina and The Bridge of San Luis Rey ... but I felt comfortable including them in the article because a very reliable (about bridges) discusses them in the context of bridges as metaphors. Noleander (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I see your point - that seems like sound reasoning. These aren't critical to include in any case. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 03:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Barriers should be at least 2m tall, and extend the full length of the bridge. A sensible guideline, but might be worth attributing this so it doesn't sound like the verdict of Wikipedians.

Done. Reworded this footnote so it now reads Many bridges have installed barriers to prevent suicide. The heights range from 2 meters (6.6 ft) to 5 meters (16 ft), and are generally successful at reducing suicide rates. The associated citation discusses 4 or 5 different bridges around the world. The wording should now make it clear the facts come from the source, not the WP editor. Noleander (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Review in progress... Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm pleased to support this nomination! It's an impressively written article on a challenging, broad topic. Kudos on the considerable effort this must have taken. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this article (twice!) ... genuinely appreciated. Noleander (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

No problem! I enjoyed learning more about the topic :) Anne drew (talk · contribs) 03:27, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Support Comments from Sdkb

I reviewed the article during the December peer review, and checking in on it again now. Overall, it reflects some very impressive work by the nominator, especially given the broadness of the topic. I'll leave comments on various things I notice, although I can't guarantee I'll have time to give it a thorough enough look to reach a support/oppose (if that happens, the coordinators should not interpret the lack of a bolded !vote as carrying any implication). Sdkb ^talk 23:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for re-visiting the article. Your PR feedback was an impetus for major improvements over the past month, leading to a greater emphasis on non-engineering material ... including the new Economic and environmental impact and suicide sections. Noleander (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Lead

• The first sentence of the lead defines bridges as structures that provide passage for vehicles or pedestrians, but in the history section we talk about aqueducts, which instead provide passage for water. Are those considered bridges? (The aqueduct article seems to say yes.) Let's clarify the definition. Sdkb ^talk 23:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. The prior FA reviewer above (correctly) pointed out that the lead had too many wordy lists, so I removed some lists, but went too far in the opposite direction. I've now changed the first sentence to A bridge is a structure designed to span an obstacle, such as a river or valley, allowing vehicles, pedestrians, and other loads to pass across. Which should leave room for aqueducts, which generally are considered to be bridges. Noleander (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• The history of bridge design reflects the evolution of humankind's engineering technologies. I know I already harped on this during the PR, but it still seems like filler. What, exactly, would we lose if we took it out? Don't the following sentences directly show that bridge design has evolved as technology has advanced? And nearly everything in the built world has evolved over time, with bridges hardly being unique in that, so it seems so obvious that we really shouldn't devote space to it unless we have to. Sdkb ^talk 23:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Yes, it is a tautology. I deleted the sentence. Noleander (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Over time, the maximum achievable span of bridges has steadily increased, reaching a 2 km span in 2022. The linking in this sentence could use some improvement. I think List of longest suspension bridge spans could be linked from it, and span (engineering) would probably also be useful since it's a technical term (some readers may not realize it's not the whole bridge but just the part between supports). Also, should we use {{convert}} for the unit, or at least a non-breaking space? Sdkb ^talk 23:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Changed to Over time, the maximum achievable span of bridges has steadily increased, reaching 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) in 2022. - Noleander (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the lead no longer links to the various types of bridges, as an earlier version of it did. These links seem useful. Sdkb ^talk 23:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Done? The first two paragraphs now contain six new links to bridge sub-articles: arch, suspension, cable-stayed, viaduct, trestle, and pontoon. Two days ago, the lead had two sentences that listed more kinds, but two other FA reviewers above hinted that there were (a) too many adjacent "sea of blue" links; and (b) too many wordy list-type sentences, so I removed many of the links. So I'm reluctant to restore the full list of kinds that was there 48 hours ago. But I think this fix (that I made just now: adding 6 links) should be a good middle ground. Those new bridge-kind links in the first two paragraphs - in conjunction with the many links in the sidebar - should be ample. But I can add more links if you think it is wise. Noleander (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Different reviewers offering contradictory suggestions is one of the more annoying things that can happen at FAC, so I hope the others are happy with the happy medium. It looks good to me. On a philosophical level, I generally consider linking topics a reader might be interested in to be a more important imperative than MOS:SOB. Sdkb ^talk 04:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Modern bridges are primarily made from steel and reinforced concrete, but earlier bridges were typically made of stone, iron, and wood. This sentence is redundant to the discussion of materials in the earlier history paragraph of the lead. Sdkb ^talk 23:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Deleted that sentence. Noleander (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• A new bridge built in a community can have a significant impact on the environment, society, and economy. Positive effects include shorter transport times and increased gross domestic product; negative effects include contributions to global warming and increased pollution. This sentence works similarly to the history one I complained about above: It provides a vaguer ("significant impact") introduction to what follows. But there isn't enough following to warrant an intro sentence. So we could make this more concise by just taking it out and launching into the positive and negative effects. Sdkb ^talk 23:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Deleted the spongy introductory sentence. The material now reads: Bridges can create beneficial impacts to a community, including shorter transport times and increased gross domestic product; and also negative effects such as increased pollution and contributions to global warming. Noleander (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks good! Sdkb ^talk 04:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Body

• I know there's been a lot of (hopefully constructive) criticism, so throwing in one point of pure praise: I think the image selection for the article is really outstanding, with high-quality images that do a great job of illustrating specific points/examples directly discussed in the body. Sdkb ^talk 23:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
• [The Operation] section looks like it focuses almost entirely on technical maintenance, but I presume there's also lots to say about the social/logistical operation of bridges. As a reader, I might be interested in learning about bridges' impact on traffic patterns (including the costs/benefits of overpasses vs. grade crossings) or about toll bridges, but the article doesn't currently address them. This comment of mine from the PR looks to be unaddressed. My reply to your comment about summary style is similar to my reply about suicide — I'm sure that there are sources somewhere that discuss these things, even if they're not engineering-focused sources, and I'd like to see us search a bit harder to find them. For toll bridges, I don't necessarily think we'd need more than just a sentence, but there's a difference between a brief mention and no mention. Sdkb ^talk 23:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You're right. Your suggestions in the PR regarding suicide resulted in an important new section Bridge#Suicide. You are also right about "social/logistical operation of bridges" ... I think I overlooked that due to burnout. I'll revisit that in the next couple of days and try to add at least two sentences. Noleander (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good; feel free to ping me when you're done.

I wonder if some of the sources that might be useful might not be turning up because they refer to "overpasses" rather than "bridges". A quick search turned up this article, which might be one entry point, and there might be others in the references of grade separation (I also see some interesting sources on the controversy around pedestrian bridges there). I know that the debate around grade separating railroads is fairly active in the railroad safety world. Sdkb ^talk 04:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those articles. Your suggestion of broadening my search keywords seems promising ... I'll give it a try. Noleander (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sdkb: - The issues above have been addressed, I believe. The major new additions are:

1. A new section on grade separations
2. A new section on financing, tolls, and public-private partnerships
3. New details about the impacts of bridges to its community (viz. corruption, pollution, collisions, global warming, etc)

I did not add material about footbridges (that you mentioned above) because the sources were scarce, and the material seems more appropriate for the footbridge article; but I can add material if you think it would improve the Bridge article. Noleander (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Overall, those additions look great!

For the grade separation section, it looks like grade crossing currently redirects to level crossing, which is about road-rail crossings, whereas the article on road-road at-grade crossings is just intersection (road), with interchange (road) covering grade-separated road junctions. Not sure if we might be able to do a little better on linking given that set (or maybe we ought to RfD grade crossing to point it somewhere else).

Done. Now reads An important application of bridges is improving safety and traffic flow at intersections where roads or railways cross at ground level. Such intersections require vehicles to stop, and lead to slower traffic, wasted fuel, and higher incidence of collisions. One technique to mitigate these issues is to build a bridge, enabling one of the roads to pass over the other: this process is known as grade separation. Grade separation can be implemented at railway-road intersections or road-road intersections. The wording is okay, I think, but I was unable to get a wikilink for the word "intersection" in the first sentence. There is no suitable article in WP. The only thing I can envision is creating a new, small article such as intersection (traffic) that is very broad and includes road-road, road-rail, rail-rail, etc. Not sure that is the best approach, though. Noleander (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Junction (traffic) might be the link you're looking for! Overall, looks good! Sdkb ^talk 19:43, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Added wikilink to Junction (traffic) in the first sentence of that new paragraph. Noleander (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

For financing, do you think the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative has been on enough of a bridge-building spree to warrant a mention? (I encountered one such bridge at Wikimania this year crossing a whole national park!)

Great photo, must have been a fun trip!! I added this sentence into the existing "Financing" section: Some bridges – particularly in developing countries – are financed from international sources such as the World Bank or China's Belt and Road Initiative. -- Noleander (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I do think some coverage of footbridges is warranted, both since we want to be thinking about bridges in the broadest possible terms in this article (cf. aqueducts from earlier) and since I'd guess they're a quite common type of bridge, particularly in the developing world. (I do promise I'll go to bat for you if someone criticizes that material as making the article TOOLONG...) Taking a stab at what it might look like (feel free to use or adapt):

Footbridges can range from boardwalks enabling passage over marshy land to urban skybridges such as the Minneapolis Skyway System, which shields pedestrians from the city's freezing winters. When used to cross roads they may be safer than crosswalks, but have been criticized by urbanists and disability advocates for inconveniencing pedestrians, hindering accessibility, and perpetuating car dependency.

Done. Added a new subsection "Pedestrians" (within Usage section, so "pedestirans" seemed a more fitting title than structure-focused word "Footbridge"): Some bridges, known as footbridges, are devoted to pedestrian traffic. They range from simple boardwalks enabling passage over marshy land to elevated skybridges – such as the Minneapolis Skyway System – which shield pedestrians from harsh winter weather. When used to cross roads in busy urban areas, footbridges are generally safer than crosswalks, but have been criticized by urbanists and disability advocates for inconveniencing pedestrians, hindering accessibility, diminishing the quality of city life, and perpetuating car dependency. -- Noleander (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 03:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent suggestions. I'll start on those improvements tomorrow. Noleander (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

• Would bridge management system be an appropriate {{further}} or {{main}} link from the Management section? Sdkb ^talk 23:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Added a "further" template link. Noleander (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Positive effects can include shorter transport times, employment opportunities, improvements to social equity, improved productivity, and increases to the gross domestic product. Negative impacts of bridges can include contributions to global warming, increased traffic accidents, workplace injuries, corruption, and increased pollution (during construction, from maintenance work, and from vehicular traffic). I still think the economic impact section needs significant expansion, and these sentences are glossing over a lot. How do bridges contribute to global warming? Is the increased traffic collisions (a more neutral term I'd prefer we use rather than "accidents") due to induced demand or because bridges are less safe for cars than the alternative driving route? How do bridges lead to corruption? Things like this all deserve to be spelled out, just as we give full explanations of the engineering concepts. Sdkb ^talk 23:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I'll try to find sources to expand that material. The constraints I'm facing are (a) Secondary sources on bridges (even non-engineering ones) barely touch on social/economic/environmental impacts ... we're talking 1/100 the amount of material they devote to aesthetics, history, and engineering. That said, I'll look again (many sources on sustainability discuss "infrastructure" in general, not bridges specifically). (b) the article is around 9,730 words now, and recent FA nominations have been pushing hard to enforce a 9,000 word limit, which is worrisome. But I suppose we can always remove engineering material. Noleander (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. I overhauled the Bridge#Economic and environmental impact section by (1) adding detail on global warming; (2) adding detail on corruption; (3) change "vehicular accidents" to "vehicular collisions"; (4) adding detail on vehicular collisions; (5) adding detail on pollution; (5) re-organized the material in the section to flow better. This included adding couple new sources. The other Sustainability material in the section, I believe, already had sufficient detail, so I did not add more ... that material includes: wage growth; travel times reduced; gender disparity in income; mitigating societal impacts of floods; and improve accessibility to goods and services. If you think more work is needed, let me know and I'll take care of it. [PS: I'm still working on adding non-engineering operations material to the article, including Grade separation, Toll bridges; bridge financing, etc] Noleander (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• The process of cutting-out a small piece of wire from a large cable of a heavily trafficked suspension bridge is seen in this video. This footnote seems to violate WP:ELNO. If we really think the video is useful but can't find a freely licensed version, then I'd say use {{external media}}. Sdkb ^talk 23:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Deleted the entire footnote, including the external link. Noleander (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Moving to support. Although I have not done a full read/review of every section of the article, I have extensively reviewed it during the peer review and this FAC, with a focus on the non-technical aspects of the topic. In particular, I have reviewed for comprehensivity (1b) and article organization (2b), with a secondary focus on prose quality (1a), the lead (2a) and images (3). My concerns in all of these areas have been fully addressed, and the article overall looks to be in excellent shape, so I am comfortable moving to support. I expect that other reviewers will cover the other FA criteria/sections I did not thoroughly evaluate (and therefore remain neutral on by default). Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 20:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Igordebraga

• Support in the immortal words of James Brown, "take 'em to the bridge!" Impressive work covering basically everything that can be said about the topic. igordebraga ≠ 18:51, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Harry

First of all, this is an excellent article. I've watched its development from afar and, while I've brought a few individual bridges through FAC, I'm in awe of your efforts to get such a broad article to FA. One thing that struck me from the lead is how little mention there is of arches, which are probably the most common form of bridge (possibly barring simple structures like a tree trunk across a stream). Stone and later brick arches were ubiquitous until recent (in historic terms) developments with metal and concrete and are still commonly used. I also would have expected something about the varying shapes and sizes of bridge, which could be anything from the aforementioned tree trunk to a simple stone arch to huge multi-span structures. I'm sure you've wrestled with what to include in the lead, so I'm sorry to drop this on you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. Yes, I can add some more material into the lead about arches and other shapes and sizes. I think I used to have more on that, but a reviewer thought there were too many lists in the Lead (list of materials, list of shapes, list of usages, ... ) so I trimmed some of the list-ish material out of the lead. I'll put some back in and post a note here when I'm done. Noleander (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell - Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback. I added a new paragraph to the Lead that reads:

Bridges can be constructed in a wide variety of forms, determined by their purpose and location. Simple bridge structures include beam bridges made from logs, and suspension bridges made of ropes or vines. Arch bridges were first built thousands of years ago, originally of stone or brick, but are now typically made of concrete or steel. Crossing wide rivers or deep valleys requires more complex forms such as trusss or cantilever bridges. The longest spans use suspension or cable-stayed designs, both of which rely on high-strength steel cables to support the deck. Multi-span viaducts can cross wide valleys; trestles are a common design for carrying heavy trains; and pontoon bridges – which float on water – provide passage across waters too deep for piers.

Let me know if you think it needs more work, or if there are any other issues with the article that need to be addressed. Noleander (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, I know leads are hard, but I think you've introduced some duplication. I really like the new paragraph, but the next one starts "The Romans and ancient Chinese built major arch bridges of stone and timber", which is redundant now to the new paragraph, and then describes developments through to the Industrial Revolution but, at least in Europe, most of those developments were bigger/wider/more complex arches, so I feel that text would be more at home with the discussion of arches. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

No worries. I've reworked those two paragraphs (paragraphs #2 and #3) so they now read:

Bridges can be constructed in a wide variety of forms, determined by their purpose and location. Simple bridge structures include beam bridges made from logs, and suspension bridges made of ropes or vines. The Romans and ancient Chinese built major arch bridges of timber, stone, and brick. During the Renaissance, advances in science and engineering led to wider bridge spans and more elegant designs. Concrete was perfected in the early 1800s, and arch bridges are now built primarily of concrete or steel.

With the Industrial Revolution came mass-produced steel, which enabled the creation of more complex forms such as trusss or cantilever bridges that permitted bridges to cross wide rivers or deep valleys. The longest spans use suspension or cable-stayed designs, both of which rely on high-strength steel cables to support the deck. Over time, the maximum achievable span of bridges has steadily increased, reaching 2 kilometers (1.2 miles) in 2022. Other bridge forms include multi-span viaducts – which can cross wide valleys; trestles: a common design for carrying heavy trains; and pontoon bridges – which float on water – that provide passage across waters too deep for piers.

This approach is integrating (or consolidating) the list-of-structures with the chronological history, so the redundancies should now be minimized. Noleander (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I like that. I'm being a bit pedantic now but how common are pontoon bridges compared to other major forms? And I'm a little sceptical of "waters too deep for piers"; great progress was made with piling in the 19th and 20th centuries which allowed piers to be sunk deeper than was previously thought possible. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Pedantic is good when building an encyclopedia :-) You are correct about the pontoon bridge text; so I replaced it with moveable bridges. It now reads:

... Other bridge forms include multi-span viaducts – which can cross wide valleys; trestles: a common design for carrying heavy trains; and moveable bridges such as draw bridges and swing bridges.

Alternatively, instead of moveable bridges, the Lead could mention extradosed bridges which are becoming more common in the 21st century. Noleander (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Most people will be familiar with some sort of movable bridge. More so, I would have thought, than pontoon bridges. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• Not necessarily a requirement, but it seems odd that you use Alcantara as an example in the text but the accompanying image is of Pont du Gard. I love the photo, so maybe work in a mention in the text?

Done. Noleander (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• The section on early medieval bridges seems a little thin. Obviously this article is a high-level summary but there's plenty of literature on medieval bridges in England alone (sorry, pet subject!) and some notable survivors like the Old Exe Bridge, Monnow Bridge, High Bridge, Lincoln, and Clattern Bridge (all have surviving fabric from the 12th century).

Added Monnow Bridge ... I could not find mention of the other three in the major sources I have at my fingertips. Not to say those three bridges are not important; but they should probably be mentioned in one of those sources to be important enough for this particular top-level article. In addition, the article used to have an unusually high proportion of US & European bridge examples, and an earlier reviewer (correctly) suggested using a more international set of bridges as examples (throughout the entire article). A few months ago, I went thru the article and removed many US and European bridge examples and added examples from Asia, Africa, etc. If you live in Europe, you may be familiar with European bridges ... but we should probably avoid reversing that "more international" progress without a compelling reason. Noleander (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• I would have liked a mention of packhorse bridges or similar given their importance in medieval trade.

I can't find any mention of packhorse bridge in any of my normal sources (except a photo in Brown p. 15 ... no mention in Brown's text) which indicates it may be not sufficiently important for the bridge article. That article suggests it may be too Anglo-centric for the Bridge article. But I can put it into the article if you insist. Noleander (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• Nothing on pontage?

I can't find any mention of pontage in any of my normal sources ... which indicates it may be not sufficiently important for the bridge article. That article suggests it may be too Anglo-centric for the Bridge article. But I can put it into the article (maybe into the Bridge#Financing section?) if you insist. Noleander (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• What about bridge chapels and the religious role of bridges in the Middle Ages?

Done. Added Some bridges built in Europe in the Middle Ages incorporated chapels into their design. into the existing "Uses" section. The article also has some mention of relationship between bridges & religion in the "Art & Culture" section: Many bridges in Europe are named Devil's Bridge, and in some cases have folkloric stories that explain why the bridge is associated with the devil. Christian legend holds that St. Bénézet lifted a huge boulder to begin construction of the Pont Saint-Bénézet bridge, and went on to found the apocryphal Bridge-Building Brotherhood. Noleander (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• cast iron was strong under compression, it was brittle change to present tense? It still has those characteristics and there are some notable remaining cast-iron bridges.

Done. Noleander (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• An early iron bridge was built in Shropshire although it's veering towards my pet subject, I think this understates the significance of the Iron Bridge. This was the first substantial metal bridge ever, to the point that the material wasn't understood and it was massively over-engineered. That seems like a more important detail in an article about bridges than the river it crosses for example.

Done. Changed that sentence to read: The Iron Bridge in Shropshire, England – completed in 1781 – was the first major bridge made entirely of cast iron. Noleander (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to labour the point too much, and in general I'm not going to oppose because my favourite examples weren't included so feel free to ignore most of them if you have better examples (especially if they increase geographical diversity), but I think the article is missing the point on this one; it wasn't just the first cast-iron bridge but the first time anyone crossed a river on a structure that wasn't wood or stone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• I think the article also skips over the importance of early metal bridges before steel was widely available. Thomas Telford made groundbreaking progress with cast iron. Wrought iron wasn't long-lived before steel was perfected but it was used a few times, notably for railway bridges after cast iron fell out of favour after the Dee Bridge disaster.

Done. Added: Iron bridges played a major role in the rapid expansion of rail systems in Europe in the mid nineteenth century, but accidents such as the Dee Bridge disaster in 1847 demonstrated the fundamental unsuitability of iron as a material for bridge building. Noleander (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• You use (for example) "1700s" and "1800s" throughout; do you mean the decade between 1799 and 1811 or the 19th century? If the latter, I suggest using the century for clarity.

Done. Noleander (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• The image in the 1400 to 1800 section is incongruous. That bridge is obviously more recent than the period under discussion and indeed it wasn't built until the late 19th century (I can't imagine there were huge numbers of major bridges in North America before the 19th century?)

Done. Replaced photo with pic of Rialto Bridge built 1591. Moved body text about US timber bridges into the following 1800-... section. Noleander (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• Rail bridges used timber to obtain long spans makes it sounds like rail bridges were exclusively timber but in Europe most were brick. More importantly, this is at the end of the 1400-1800 section but railways (as we understand them today) started to develop towards the middle of the 19th century.

Done. Move the "timber" sentences into the following "1800-..." section. Changed the "timber use for rail bridges" sentence to clarify that it is focusing on North America context: Rail bridges in North America used timber in truss designs (for long spans) and trestle designs (for spanning deep ravines). Noleander (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• 1800 to present skips everything from the development of cement to the early 20th century. The 1830s-1860s was the advent of the railway era and probably gave us more substantial bridges than any other similar period of time. Stone and brick bridges, although not novel, were built on a new scale. This was also the first time skew arches became widespread. My expertise is the UK so I apologise for the UK-centric list but notable examples include Skerne Bridge, Sankey Viaduct, Wolverton Viaduct, Royal Border Bridge (not necessarily groundbreaking in engineering terms but bigger than anything previously seen) and the more groundbreaking Wharncliffe Viaduct, Maidenhead Railway Bridge, High Level Bridge, River Tyne, and Ballochmyle Viaduct. There's also the Göltzsch Viaduct for a bit of geographic variety. This would also be a better place to discuss the railway trestles in North America as the railroads spread west. (I see rail bridges are discussed in engineering terms a bit further down but I still feel they should be covered in the history)

Done. I added a new paragraph into the "History: 1800s" section: The age of railways began in the 1820s, and led major innovations in bridge design. Britain is representative of how railways influenced bridge-building in industrialized nations: led by designers such as Isambard Kingdom Brunel ... Railway bridges primarily used masonry and stone arch designs, because those could withstand the tremendous loads imposed by trains, but iron beam designs (on masonry or stone piers) were also used. The sources covering that era focused on British bridges, because (a) Britain was the heart of railway growth, and (b) the quality of the British engineering was especially notable. So I wrote that new paragraph to follow the sources: the new material focuses on Britain and its 19th c. railway bridges (in contrast to the rest of the article which maintains a more global perspective). Noleander (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• Holborn Viaduct is an interesting example you might not have room for that shows that grade separation is an older concept than we generally assume.

Done. Added a new footnote into the "Grade separation" section: An early example of grade separation for roadways is the Holborn Viaduct in London, completed in 1869. Regarding size: the article is now over 10,000 prose words, which exceeds the 9,000 value suggested in WP:SIZERULE, so (as you point out) less-significant material may need to be relegated into one of the dozens of sub-articles. Noleander (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't feel you have to include this (or any of my examples) to appease me. I won't withhold support over it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That's as far as "structure and form" for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Harry, it's been nearly a week. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I was waiting for some replies but there are a few things I think need more attention:

• The importance of The Iron Bridge (in being not just the first bridge to use cast iron specifically, like a refinement of something that already existed, but the first metal bridge anywhere ever)

Done. Improved wording to state it was the first major metal bridge (I kept the word "major" because the sources say there were a few all-metal bridges in Britain before it). Noleander (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• Medieval stone arch bridges: my point was less about those examples in particular and more that there were quite a few (several hundred at least) multi-arch stone bridges in Europe in the C12/early C13, and there are several notable survivors with original fabric. Reading the article, one could be left with the impression that hardly any bridges were built

Done. Expanded from one to two sentences. Included the wording "Surviving examples include the... " to inform readers that some are still around. The History of bridges sub-article is a place readers can visit to get more detail about the history of bridges - but it needs a lot of work. Noleander (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• Contrary to the article, iron was largely out of fashion by the start of the railway era (the Stephensons used it a few times but the overwhelming majority of C19 railway bridges were brick or stone). Iron was popular on canals a generation earlier (example), and most cast-iron bridges, at least in Europe, owe something to Telford.

Done. Re-wrote all the text related to cast/wrought iron. Clarified that iron was used for some rail bridges, but removed any hint that iron was a major construction material for rail bridges. Noleander (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

• Cast/wrought iron: this belongs further down if we're cutting off at 1800, but demonstrated the fundamental unsuitability of iron as a material is incorrect. The Dee bridge disaster demonstrated the unsuitability of cast-iron girders; cast-iron arches were very successful and several survive today (even including a railway bridge). Wrought iron was much more successful in girder form (example) but was short-lived before steel came along.

Done. Changed the history section year boundary from 1800 to 1750, so the Industrial revolution no longer spans across two sections. Simplified the distinction between cast & wrought iron so it no longer carries any implications about how each was specifically used: "Both cast iron (which is strong under compression, but brittle) and wrought iron (which was more ductile and better under tension) were used for building bridges." Removed the sentence containing ".... demonstrated the fundamental unsuitability of iron as a material". Kept the sentence that includes "... iron beam designs (on masonry or stone piers) were also used" so readers don't get the impression that all rail bridges were made of stone/masonry. Noleander (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree with the attempt to get away from just Western examples, but we shouldn't understate the importance of historical developments in Europe (or, indeed, modern bridge developments in places like China). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: - Thanks again for providing some great insights! I believe I've addressed all the concerns you've raised above. Noleander (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Excellent work! I think we're there with the history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Source review

Another broad scope article, seems like. Probably pointless to even try to evaluate "thorough and comprehensive survey of the literature". What makes Gangemi Editore a reliable source? While I know the Italian language I unfortunately don't know anything about Italian publishers. I note that (with exception of some Italian and Chinese sources) almost all sources are either UK or US located, is there nothing else? Didn't do any spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Thanks for taking the time to do a source review - much appreciated.

• "What makes Gangemi Editore a reliable source?"
  • While Gangemi Editore does not have a page in English WP, the Italian WP has an article on the publisher, and the English translation indicates that the publisher started in 1962, and has been in continuous operation with over 10,000 publications. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that article
  • A JSTOR website discussing a major Italian book/periodical distributor lists Gangemi Editore among a dozen other reputable editors
  • A search in WP:TWL for "Gangemi Editore" returned 932 results. A glance at a few of the results indicates their name is found mostly as a publisher of scholarly material that is cited by articles (published by other publishers) within WP:TWL's index
  • The company's own website looks legitimate and raises no red flags (to me, at least)
  • I did a Google search for "Is Gangemi Editore a predatory publisher" and got a negative response, for whatever that is worth
  • I viewed the Italian book's contents online (the dozen pages that were relevant to the Bridge article) and translated those pages into English. The book, on its face, appears to be legitimate and shows now indications of being a scam or amateurish.
  • The author of the Italian book appears to be an architect or scholar that studies Italian architecture. She has a web page in the ORCID index.
  • The Italian book is used as a source for only a single sentence in the article "In the modern era, bridge-restaurants can be found at some highway rest areas; these support a restaurant or shops directly above the highway and are accessible to drivers moving in both directions" which is not very contentious or surprising material. I tried to find an English language source from a better-known publisher, but was unable to find such a source.
• "I note that (with exception of some Italian and Chinese sources) almost all sources are either UK or US located, is there nothing else? "
  • When I started working on the article, it was very focused on US and Europe (especially UK). I endeavored to broaden the article and give it a global scope. I speak only English and Spanish, so my initial search for sources naturally led to sources written in English. After finding excellent English-language scholarly secondary sources, I used their sources to locate additional reliable sources covered bridges from an international perspective. I found good sources, and – in many cases – the authors were from non-English-speaking countries (Japan, China, etc) and were publishing in English. I did not pay attention to where the sources were published, but – since they are in English – I would not be surprised if they were published in US or UK. As I incorporated material from the secondary sources into the Bridge article, I was pleased to discover that they had researched bridges (history, engineering, etc) around the globe and done a good job covering international material. In summary, I believe the English-language sources used by the article provide appropriate international coverage, resulting in an article that is sufficiently global.

Thanks again for helping with the FA review process. Noleander (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, I think all of your queries have been addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I guess yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

MSincccc

Lead

• “draw bridge” → "drawbridge"
  • Since the article uses American English.
• “moveable" → "movable"
• “create beneficial impacts to a community” → “create beneficial impacts on a community”

History

• “semi-circular” → “semicircular”
• “railway mania” → “Railway Mania”
  • Since it is a proper noun.

MSincccc (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Structure and form

• “Several other terms can used to designate” → “Several other terms can be used”
  • Missing verb
• “but is not an exhaustive list” → “but are not an exhaustive list”
  • Subject–verb disagreement
• with a single tall towers in the middle of the river
  • “towers” → “tower”
• “Washington state” → “Washington State”

MSincccc (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Construction

• “build-up” (verb) → “build up”
• “wash-away” → “wash away”

MSincccc (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc - Thanks for taking the time to apply your eagle eyes to the article. I have fixed all of the issues you identified above (Lead through Construction sections). Noleander (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Operation and financing

• None (for now).

Society and culture

• “a significant impacts” → “significant impacts”
• “the greenhouse effect” → “the greenhouse effect”
  • I don't know whether this is intentional or not but I know specific users who use double spaces, which are no issue if applied consistently.
• “more gains that lower-educated persons” → “more gains than lower-educated persons”
• “minimal educational requirements” → “minimum educational requirements”
• Is École nationale des ponts et chaussées the same as "École de Paris"?

MSincccc (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Implemented the three actionable copy edits from above ("Society and Culture"). Regarding the question: "Is École nationale des ponts et chaussées the same as 'École de Paris'?" No, those are distinct schools. Noleander (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not come across the term "Ninevah" on the article Nineveh.

Done. That was a spelling error: changed to the correct "Nineveh". Noleander (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Bottom line

One additional comment above; the rest of the article appears fine as it stands. I look forward to your response. MSincccc (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

@MSincccc: - All done. Thanks again for taking time to do a review. Noleander (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Support. MSincccc (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• "to prevent the bridge from settling into the subsoil" reads a little oddly. Is it not the bridge supports - or whatever - which are in danger of "settling into the subsoil"?

Done. Changed to These structures rest on a foundation that is carefully designed to transfer the weight of the bridge to the subsoil without settling. Noleander (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• "Bridges can be constructed in a wide variety of forms, determined by their purpose and location" ... and the available technology[ies]?

Done. Changed to Bridges can be constructed in a wide variety of forms, determined by the location, intended purpose, and available construction technologies. Noleander (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• "such as" is used eight times in the lead alone. So many repetitions gets in the way of flowing prose; any chance of replacing a few? Come to that, swapping out a few of the 53 uses in the main article would improve its readability.

Done. Reduced to two uses in Lead; and 19 uses in total. I carefully reviewed all remaining uses and they are appropriate and not too repetitive. Noleander (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• "such as limit state design and finite element method." Should that be 'such as limit state design and the finite element method.'?

Done. Noleander (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - Thanks for taking the time to provide notes, especially the embarrassing 53 uses of "such as". I believe all the concerns you noted are resolved. Noleander (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• No problem. It’s a great article. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.