Talk:Bridge

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Good articleBridge has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 2, 2025Good article nomineeNot listed
October 19, 2025Good article nomineeListed
November 5, 2025Peer reviewReviewed
December 2, 2025Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 24, 2025.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that cables of large suspension bridges can reach over 1 metre (3.3 ft) in diameter and weigh more than 20,000 tonnes?
Current status: Good article

Proposal to remove "Risk of too many images" warning

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Follow up on GA #1 suggestions

[edit]

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)[reply]

Definition

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 talk 15:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that cables of large suspension bridges can reach over 1 meter (3.3 ft) in diameter and weigh over 20,000 tonnes?
  • Source: * Gimsing, Niels J. (1997). Cable Supported Bridges: Concept and Design (Second ed.). Wiley. p. 56. ISBN 9781119951872. Retrieved 1 September 2025. diameter over 1 meter. Jones, Vardiman; Howells, John (2000). "Suspension Bridges". In Ryall, Michael (ed.). The Manual of Bridge Engineering. Thomas Telford. p. 603. ISBN 0727727745. Retrieved 1 September 2025. 94 tonnes per strand.. Sangree, Rachel; Shafer, Ben; et al. (2003). "The Structural Art of the Akashi Kaikyo Bridge" (PDF). Perceptions on the Evolution of Structures. Retrieved 2 October 2025. 290 strands in a cable
Improved to Good Article status by Noleander (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Noleander (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Drive-by comment: I'd suggest adding {{Convert}} to ALT0, and abandoning ALT1 as it is not particularly interesting (and the bar for interestingness should be high for a topic like this — there's a cornucopia of possible bridge facts and we only get to DYK this once). Sdkb talk 16:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion: I added convert template for the diameter (not sure if needed for tonnes). Agree that ALT1 is not great. Noleander (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I've given a more detailed review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bridge/archive2 § Comments from Sdkb. Everything looks good for ALT0 (ALT1 fails on interestingness imo). Sdkb talk 08:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment during review for promotion: @Noleander and Sdkb: ALT0 and its sources appear to refer solely to suspension bridges, not to other bridges generally or even other bridges that use cables. So I'm adding "suspension" to the hook to clarify. Hopefully this won't pose a problem for queuing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources layout - column width

[edit]

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)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

Bridge

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Comments from Anne drew

[edit]

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
[edit]
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:
  1. Integrating this content into the chronology; or
  2. 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.
Types
[edit]
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.
Requirements
[edit]
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.
Design
[edit]
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.

Construction
[edit]
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.
Operations
[edit]
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.
In culture
[edit]
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.

Lead
[edit]
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.
Overall review
[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Peer review

[edit]

Bridge

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

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? The article has been through the WP:GA process, and had one PR done. Thanks! Noleander (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just have a couple of driveby comments:
  • Is it worth mentioning living root bridges? I imagine they've been around for a very long time.
  • The "Failures" section focuses only on the United States. A global perspective would be nice. Do bridges fail more often in countries with more lax safety standards? Why else might a bridge fail, aside from water?
  • The external links section is excessive - too many YouTube videos
  • ISBNs should be formatted with hyphens to make them easier to read. See WP:ISBNs
  • The "Numismatics" section feels unnecessary, and could be pared back to a couple sentences under "Art and literature"
  • You have a citation needed tag under the section "Deck"
  • Missing a kilometres to miles conversion under the section "Suspension bridge" and the section "Long, multi-span bridge"
That's all from me. Great job on this article, and thanks for your efforts. MediaKyle (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking time to look at the article, and provide excellent feedback. All those suggestions look great, and I'll implement most of them ... tho I may leave the ISBNs without hyphens.
Regarding the "Failures" section being USA-centric: I've endeavored to make the entire article global in scope, but since I speak English, I'm limited to English sources which, unfortunately, tend to focus on US, England, and Europe. In the case of bridge failures: I've yet to find a source that has global scope, but I'll keep searching. Noleander (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from ErnestKrause

[edit]

This is a fairly long article with a system space approaching somewhere around 180Kb which might take a while to get through. The writing in the article is generally fairly good for prose quality throughout, and the researched references appear comprehensive. Images are generally well-chosen as are some of the custom illustrations. Some comments to get things started below:

(1) Lede looks fairly good and is short and sweet. This should be appreciated by many if the article moves forward to FAC. I’m likely to reserve some comments about the lede for the end of this peer review after looking at some details in the main body.

(2) Some general issues first as to the presence or absence of major architects and engineers being mentioned or not mentioned, which might be noticed by readers in this field. There is no mention of Othmar Ammann, who was a central figure in bridge design and construction in the 20th century. Some mention of his name and contributions might be appreciated by both general readers and readers specializing in this field. His name should also be linked as well into this article.

Done. Noleander (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Regarding another architect prominent especially in the aesthetics of bridge design, and more recent, is Santiago Calatrava and his bridge designs and completed projects. If you look at his Wikipedia article then you would see some prominent examples of his more exemplary work on bridges. My thinking is that readers would appreciate perhaps seeing one or two well chosen examples of his works by adding images, and some comment about why his aesthetics have had such a wide impact upon the community of people who appreciate his works.

Done. Noleander (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've enhanced an existing sentence so it now reads Bridge designers that are known for emphasizing the visual appeal of their bridges include Thomas Telford, Gustave Eiffel, John Roebling, Robert Maillart, and Santiago Calatrava. Any additional info would have to go into a sub-article for size reasons. Noleander (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Switching to the topic of bridge design after 9-11 and the subject of safety in construction for the 21st century. In NYC there has been large attention paid to the issue of so-called ‘hardening’ of bridges to make them more resilient to various mischief and ill-intention. In the case of the GWB, there is a section in the Wikipedia article which discussed some of the upgrades to the bridge recently. For example, the hundreds of suspension cables have been significantly reinforced with lead pipes welded around the cables which were previously bare. The costs have also been substantial with tolls now over $20 for single passage of a car over the bridge. Some comment about increased bridge safety protocol might be useful in the article being discussed here. The GWB article here on Wikipedia is fairly good and you might glance at it.

Good idea ... I'll look into general bridge books (that cover bridges as a whole, globally) to see if they mention this topic (I don't recall seeing it mentioned, but I may have overlooked it). If it is a "New York" only topic, or even "US only", then it may not align with the global nature of the article (and the fact that the article is over 9,700 words already). I'll see what the sources say. Perhaps a couple of sentences on upgrades in general to make more robust for many forces: earthquakes, terrorism, hurricanes, etc. Noleander (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause - I was not able to find solid bridge-centric sources this, so I have not added any material. I did find a couple of sources that talked about terrorism, but they were rather obscure, or anecdotal (focus on a single bridge), or hyper technical, or applied to city infrastructure in general. So, unless I discover a more appropriate source, no material has been added. Noleander (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you combine the right keywords, then there are a bunch of sources that come up for it on Google AI overview search. This is what it gave me: "The '9-11 redesign' for the George Washington Bridge refers to security-related updates implemented as part of the broader 'Restoring the George' program, which is a massive $2 billion renovation project. Following the 9/11 attacks, the northern walkway had been closed, and while the 'Restoring the George' program focuses on structural restoration and modernizing accessibility, a key component has been the redesign of the walkways to separate pedestrians and cyclists for security and improved accessibility. This includes wider, less steep ramps compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), new viewing platforms, and dedicated walkways." ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(5) The cite tag(s) in the article need to be looked at and addressed if you are planning to upgrade the article further. There is a cite tag towards the end of the article that needs to be addressed, possibly others as well.

Can you identify a specific tag, so I can track it down and remedy it? I've run most cite-check tools I'm aware of, and don't see anything significant. There is one "Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Missing ISBN" warning, which I investigated and determined it is not a problem. And a lot of "Missing archive link" warnings, but that is beyond my control ... I believe there is a bot that visits all articles every couple of weeks and automatically inserts the archive URLs, so those warnings may disappear over time. Noleander (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under the Failures section towards the bottom of the article here: " In Palau, the Koror–Babeldaob Bridge collapsed in 1996, three months after a repair operation made major changes to the bridge.[citation needed] In 1998...". ErnestKrause (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done: found a source and inserted it. Noleander (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(6) ‘Visionary’ bridge architecture might be a topic to look at which often has startling results and drawing which capture the attention of readers with imaginative approaches to engineering and to the future of bridge design. One example is the occasional discussion of proposing a Bering Straits bridge which would join the continents. Some of the drawings and discussions I have seen about this have been rather impressive, and some of your readers might appreciate seeing something about this topic of the future of bridge design.

That's a great suggestion, and I've also had similar thoughts, particularly in regards to new materials: e.g. using carbon fiber for bridge cables (much lighter than steel wire). But the major bridge sources don't touch on it (because it is still in its infancy in 2025) and I don't want to run afoul of WP:CRYSTALBALL, which suggests that a section about "Future directions in bridge design" is inappropriate. But, in the end, it depends on the major, reliable sources. Noleander (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is some discussion on parts of this here: Bering Strait crossing. ErnestKrause (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sources and improved the "21st century" conclusion of the "History" section (which now is The late 20th century saw several major innovations in bridge design. Extradosed bridges were introduced ... In the 21st century a bridge span exceeded 2 kilometers (1.2 mi) for the first time, with the construction of the 1915 Çanakkale Bridge. The proposed bridges Strait of Messina Bridge or Bering Strait crossing are super exciting, but I don't think they belong in the Bridge article. The article (for size reasons) is already omitting hundreds of solid facts about real bridges (which major sources discuss); so it seems wrong to spend part of the word-budget on proposed bridges (plus it is WP:CRYSTALBALL type information). Noleander (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(7) The contrast of bridges and tunnels does not appear to receive much discussion in the article, even though tunnels are often a competitive form of engineering options available to urban planning and transportation planning. Possibly some mention of these considerations might be useful in this article. The example of the Chunnel from England to France comes to mind quickly; as far as I know there never was any serious discussion of a bridge span across the Channel. Maybe some discussion of why bridges are chosen over tunnels, and vice versa, might be of interest to general readers of the article.

I'll look in the sources and see what they say. I don't recall any bridge vs. tunnel comparison material, but I'll check again. There _is_ passing mention of hybrid bridge-tunnel structures (e.g. Denmark to Sweden) but I did not have room to fit that into the article because the sources were so few & slim. Noleander (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the Channel tunnel you can read about the comparison with bridge options in the section on Early proposals. ErnestKrause (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sources on "bridge vs tunnel" choices, but they tended to be very anecdotal (focused on one particular project). The article is already very large, so adding a new topic requires that major RS bridge-centric sources cover the topic. Per per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:SIZERULE some minor topics (such as "bridge vs tunnel choice") will have to go into sub-articles, rather than the Bridge top-level article. Noleander (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go with your best assessment of where to place priorities for the article. The example which stands out to me is the municipal decision process which was used in Manhatten to decide between the various spans between NY and NJ; there were 3 of them including the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel, and the GWB. There is a large history of why a bridge was chosen at one time versus going with tunnels at other times. You can decide which topics to give the most attention to in this Wikipedia Brige article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(8) Bridge failure and bridge replacement is mentioned in the article for the famous example of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. In terms of replacement of bridges, though, there does not seem to be much in the current article. Recent examples would include the Verrazano Narrows Bridge in New York which had to be replaced due to failure and poor construction. There is also the important issue of what do you do with the old and failed bridge once you build the new one to replace it, even if the replacement is directly next to it. How do municipalities assess the costs of getting rid of the failed or condemned old bridges. You might look at the Wikipedia article for the VNB for ideas about this. In Florida, for example, there are examples of major spans which were deemed too expensive to dismantle even after funding their replacements.

Good idea. There are certainly many bridges that did not last as long as the original designer intended, the Firth of Forth Roadway bridge is one example. The are either reinforced/repaired; or replaced. There are scores of bridges that were reinforced with trusses etc after unwanted wobbling was found or anticipated (esp after Tacoma Narrows). Noleander (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(9) I’m not sure if you have given any thoughts to expanding a “Popular culture” section (currently your ‘In culture’ section) for the article which could be of interest in and of itself. Hart Crane has written one of the most celebrated sustained poems of the 20th Century called ‘The Bridge’ which you might consider for this. Bridges are also attention getters in numerous crime and disaster films from Hollywood; For example, I’m thinking of a Denzel film which featured John Travolta which was very popular a few years ago. “Bridge over troubled water” is also an incredibly popular song from a few decades ago from Simon and Garfunkel using the metaphors associated with bridges. It might be interesting to see such a section which includes a little more. The film for the Bridge of the River Kwai was also quite a hit in its own time with its star cast.

Yes, that would be a good addition. My policy so far is to only insert the "In Culture" material if a bridge-centric source mentions it. It might violate OR if I were to find art that mentioned "bridge" and cherry-picked some: I need a RS to make the association (between the art & bridges) & state that it is significant. So far, there are not a lot of sources that make those connections (what I found is represented in the "In Culture" section already, but I'll look again. Noleander (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The most famous children's book about the GWB is here: [1]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for sources covering things like "The Bridge" poem, or “Bridge over troubled water”, etc. But the sources were all focused on the artist, not bridges. For an editor (me) to select a few pieces of art and include them in the article would amount to WP:CHERRYPICKING or WP:OR. The article does have some art/literature topics already, but that material is all based on sources about bridges, so the author of those sources did the "cherry picking", and I'm allowed to rely on their choices/emphasis. That said, I'll keep searching for pop-culture topics in the RS sources. Noleander (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought about this, I've started to think if it might be interesting to look at this question from the perspective of a single exceptional bridge to serve as a possible example for all the others, and the Brooklyn Bridge seems to stand out as a strong example. There is this book which has taken a serious look at this question of art and culture in: Art of the Brooklyn Bridge: A Visual History, by Richard Haw, published Oct 2, 2012. Hart Crane's poem is usually associated with it, and the Currier&Ives print is really famous. Maybe that book by Haw will have some more ideas. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(10) Your link to Pont de Neuilly is for a very nice bridge though the English Wikipedia article for it is on the stub/start article side of things. The French Interwiki version of the article is worth looking at and bringing in one of the drawing or images of it from the French Wikipedia article might be nice for this Bridge article you are presently enhancing.

The article had some images of that nature, but an earlier PR (or GA?) reviewer said the article's images were too Euro-centric & US-centric, and they were right. So I removed quite a few images of Euro/US images and replaced them with images from Africa & Asia. So, I don't want to backtrack on that progress. The article starts & ends with European bridges, and that continent already has the largest # of images in the article. It is an embarrassment of riches: there are hundreds of fantastic bridge images that cannot be displayed in the article. Noleander (talk)

(11) The engineering aspects of bridge design might be expanded along the lines of examining ‘strength of materials’ issues encountered in the engineering of bridges. Judith Dupre has written two or three books about both Bridges and about Skyscrapers which are not mentioned in the article on Bridges for Wikipedia. She has done two very popular books on Bridges, one in large format landscape mode and one in large format portrait mode. These books were of such popularity that your local public library might have a copy for you to look at. The ‘strength of materials’ issues seem to unite Bridge design and Skyscraper design in unexpected ways. The recent crop of skyscrapers going up in NYC has had a number of books written about how they could not have been built without the revolutionary progress in the strength of building materials which has taken place in engineering in recent years (many of the new building are well above the height of both the Empire State Building and the Liberty Tower Building in NYC which were previous high points). This applies to bridges as well, in that aspects of bridge design previously seen as impractical are now seen as explicit design options.

Thanks for recommending those sources: I'll look at them. The sources I've seen so far focus mostly on incremental design improvements in the past few decades (extradosed structures, concrete vs steel decks, computer modelling to reduce weight, concrete-filled steel tubes, high-strength concrete, etc) but I'll look into "strength of materials" sources & see what they say. Maybe there are some recent advance in metallurgy that have been important in the world of bridge design. Noleander (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause - Thanks again for this suggestion. I researched "strength of materials" and found multiple solid sources that were a basis for a new sentence Fiber-reinforced polymers – which do not suffer from the rust problems that plague steel – were used in bridges for many applications, such as beams, deck slabs, prestressing cables, wraps on the exterior of concrete elements, and internal reinforcing within concrete.. There are some other interesting facts available on that topic, but they will have to go into sub-articles, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:SIZERULE (Bridge is over 10,000 prose words), Noleander (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is looking stronger still; try to stick with it. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(12) Another failed bridge design was of the original design of a span from NY to NJ over the Hudson River which failed for a number of reasons. Mostly it was seen as overly ambitious is wanting to accommodate both rail traffic and regular traffic. Failed bridge “designs” and failed bridge “proposals” is a topic in itself which might deserve some attention in this article.

Those proposals for a bridge over the Hudson sound interesting, I'm not aware of them. I'm looking now at George_Washington_Bridge#Planning, are you talking about the 57th St. location that was rejected? In any case, yes, proposed bridges that did not come to fruition would be interesting material. I'll check the sources, since (as mentioned above) I'm reluctant to add material into the article unless a source about bridges in general mentions the topic. There are tens of thousands of facts about bridges available for the Bridge article, and limiting them to those topics discussed by major bridge-focused sources is essential: it provides and objective and sensible way to decide which topics/facts are significant to be included. Noleander (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the GWB article he is identified here: " The first was proposed in 1888 by civil engineer Gustav Lindenthal, who later became New York City's bridge commissioner." Lindenthal's proposal was displaced by Othmar's design. ErnestKrause (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the topic of "failed bridge design", and it seems very interesting, but the sources were rather anecdotal, and any encyclopedic content would be more appropriate for sub-articles (per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE). Notably, I did not find any discussion of the topic in "bridge centric" secondary sources. Noleander (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Lindenthal design for the bridge was a major project for him over about twenty years with lots of documentation from him; the main story which I seem to recall now is that Othmar suggested the GWB alternative design to Lindenthal for whom he was then working, that Lindenthal then went along and dismissed him from further employment with him. The happy ending is that Othmar's design prevailed over Lindenthal's failed design. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(13) International diplomacy comes up on occasion, such as the bridge linking Canada and the USA up by Niagara Falls, which might be mentioned from the standpoint of the politics and diplomacy of bridge building when more than one country is involved in building a bridge. This was a fairly unique bridge from the standpoint of the treaties and sources of funding issues, and possibly could be explored in the article. For example, are there many such examples.

Excellent suggestion: there must be several dozen bridges around the world that span international borders, and many of them must have interesting political/economic stories behind their construction. Noleander (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This issue also comes up for state-to-state borders within the USA when the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey of NY to NJ was established to police the GWB between the two states. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the specific example. I may need to use examples from places other than New York, since the article is already over-emphasizing US/Europe at the expense of Asia & Africa. It would exacerbate the issue if I added more US bridge examples/facts. I've deliberately avoided adding any facts about my favorite bridges in my home state, and forced myself to look around the globe for material. Noleander (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause - I added this to the article: Some nations have chosen to designate bridges that connect them as friendship bridges or peace bridges. accompanied by footnote See list of bridges with "friendship" in the name, and list of bridges with "peace" in the name. Noleander (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(14) Sadly, during warfare, securing bridges and destroying bridges becomes a major issue, both geopolitically and militarily. Is it worth mentioning in the article. For example, there is the film titled The Bridge at Remagen which might be of interest.

Yes, certainly deestroying bridges is a key objective in many military campaigns. The article focuses on the positive side by describing the construction of bridges in battle zones, but omits the destruction side of the equation. I'll see what the sources say. Noleander (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added this to the article During wartime, although bridges are sometimes built, they are also destroyed by bombing or by combat engineers. as a footnote. The sources were very slim on this: the bridge sources did not explicitly cover it, but they did list several examples, so I relied on that. I did find some military-focused sources, but they came at it from a combat engineering perspective, stating how those personnel were trained to explode infrastructure of any kind, not just bridges, so those sources were marginal. Noleander (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(15) The London Millennium Bridge is still often remembered as the “Whobbly Bridge” due to design failures. This was a significant embarrassment in London which was hosting international events at about that time, and the Wikipedia article should include an extra word or two about it, as well as the designation of being the “Whobbly” bridge.

I added the nickname "Wobbly" into a footnote, attached to the existing sentences: "The Millennium Bridge in London opened in 2000, but closed two days later due to excessive swaying. It did not open until two years later – after dampers were installed." Noleander (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(16) Your prose writing is sufficient well written that you might try to consider using a tighter paragraph structure throughout the article; there are often examples of 2-3 sentence paragraphs which seem like they could have more content. In my workspace I did a temporary version while using a longer average length for paragraph size which looked quite good by adjusting paragraph breaks and similar editing approaches. Its completely optional though you could give a look to tightening the paragraph structure in some of your sections using 5-6 sentences per paragraph to see how it looks. Its fully optional.

Thanks for the suggestion. The paragraph size issue is a real conundrum. I know that some readers/reviewers hate short paragraphs; on the other hand, merging two adjacent short paragraphs that are barely related simply to achieve an arbitrary size limit seems wrong. In my last FAC, a reviewer did not like the 4 or 5 short paragraphs I had, and so I merged them into adjacent paragraphs to appease them. But I look back on that decision with regret. I'll make a pass thru the Bridge article and see if there are some sensible mergers that can be done. Noleander (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That should get things started. It may be worth pinging the editor who did the fine Wikipedia article for the GWB as well for comments if he might be interested in taking a look at this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed and insightful suggestions ... I'll start implementing most of them tomorrow. I appreciate the assistance on such a broad topic!! Noleander (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are some added links I've put in above. Separately, that was a fine review you did for the film. I'm thinking that when EG below gets a chance to look at the article, that he should have some useful insights. ErnestKrause (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EG

[edit]

Saving a spot here. A few quick things I noticed:

  • There are some WP:ENGVAR inconsistencies, such as "movable" vs "moveable" - these should probably be fixed.
Thanks for catching that. I fixed movable (the article uses US spelling). I'll keep an eye out for other words. Noleander (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "Elements" subsection, I think it's best to either remove this subheader (making it so that paragraph is directly under the "Construction" header), or make "Substructure" and "Superstructure" subsections of this section.
Done. Removed "Elements" subsection title (text is now intro paragraph of "Construction" section). Noleander (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be helpful to add some info about the economic, political, etc. effects of bridge construction, if such info exists?
Absolutely: I've been looking high and low for that material, but the sources always focus on (a) design/engineering; (b) art/beauty. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. I'll widen my search, but it may be that such discussions are invariably about "infrastructure" (highways, tunnels, ports ... in addition to bridges) rather than bridges specifically. Noleander (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius - I added a new "Sustainability" section to cover this material. It - by definition - includes environmental, social, and economic impacts of bridges. I was surprised that the sources were skimpy, but I suspect the number of sources will grow in the future. There were some sources that discussed "infrastructure" or "transportation network" sustainability, bud they did not focus on bridges; so they were too marginal/tenuous for this article. But I did find a few sources that focused on bridges, and used them. I may create a sub-article on Bridge sustainability so I can add some of the marginal/tenuous material to that sub-article without raising WP:SIZERULE issues in the top-level Bridge article. Noleander (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I noticed a few other things, jumping around the article:
  • For the "Portable military bridges" section, perhaps it would be helpful to write more generally about portable or temporary bridges. For example, temporary road bridges are commonly used in construction projects that take place on existing highways.
Still working on this. Sources on non-military temporary bridges are sparse; so far I'm only finding marketing websites from companies that manufacture such bridges. I'm sure RS are out there somewhere. Noleander (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius - I finally found some sources. They were all related to the Bailey bridge, so created a new paragraph and put it inside the "Military bridge" ssection: "Military bridges have found use in civilian applications. The Bailey bridge was originally invented in 1940 for use in WW II, but continues to be used in peacetime. Bailey bridges are used as small, permanent bridges, as well as temporary bridges used while a primary, permanent bridge is being replaced or repaired." Noleander (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "Structures" section, the hierarchy of "Basic structures" subsection is fine. However, the "Other structures" section isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with the "Basic structures" section, if you get what I mean (for instance, there is a section for multi-span bridges, but it's perfectly possible for there to be a multi-span cable-stayed bridge).
Thanks for this suggestion - I was concerned about the same thing. I've reworked the hierarchy & section names a bit. It should be okay now. Noleander (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could suggest adding a subsection about hybrid bridge designs in general. The article seems to mention only one type of hybrid bridge, the extradosed bridge, but there are others, such as hybrid cable-stayed/suspension bridges. I see that footnote [h] somewhat addresses this, but it isn't very prominent.
Good point. I added a new paragraph in a prominent location Some bridges combine two types of basic structures. For instance, ... that should clarify it (tho I did not use the word "hybrid" since the sources do not use it). Noleander (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Operation" section, may it be worth mentioning safety measures that may be taken to avoid failures due to external conditions, e.g. airplane or boat strikes? For example, some countries may put aircraft warning lamps atop towers or riprap around abutments to reduce the possibility of airplane and boat strikes, respectively.
Done. Added a new paragraph about waterway and aviation warnings (in "Design" section). Noleander (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Failures" section talks about specific bridge failures and statistics about US bridge failures, but I think it may be more helpful to provide more general information about bridge failures around the world. Unless there were specific failures that fundamentally impacted the field of bridge design and construction, I'd move these to the list of bridge failures. A good example of a failure that impacted later designs is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge's collapse, though this is already mentioned in the article.
My preference is to leave it as-is. That list of failures is elaborating on the prior sentences, which stated the surprising fact that even after 1950, after centuries of studying bridge failures, bridge builders are still building brides that fail. The article then provides four examples to show the kinds of failures (corrosion, etc) that are still happening in the modern era. Noleander (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Related, the third paragraph has a typo: "bride supports". In the same paragraph, footnote [az] says that "The Millennium Bridge received the nickname "Wobbly Bridge" as a result of the swaying", but I don't really think this is important in the grand scheme of things.
Done. Removed the wobbly footnote. Noleander (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
– Epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius - Thanks for the suggestions - they all sound great and I'll implement them. Re: Including the nickname "wobbly", that was suggested by another peer reviewer, so there's contradictory guidance. I agree that a nickname for a single bridge in a topic this broad (a vital article level 3) is kind of silly. Maybe the footnote is a good compromise, vs putting the nickname in the main body text? Not sure. Noleander (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Noleander, I think the footnote would be good if it were an article about that particular bridge, or the parent topic of bridges in England. For an article about bridges in general, this strikes me as unnecessary detail, especially since it's trying to summarize the concept of a bridge and, as such, needs to be fairly broad. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree ... I just removed it. Noleander (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius Thanks again for all the excellent suggestions. If you have any additional ideas, I'm all ears. Unless something major is pointed out by a peer reviewer, my plan is to nominate at FAC in early December. Noleander (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sdkb

[edit]

I'm glad to see this vital article getting attention! I'm reviewing its DYK, but as part of that, various comments too picky for the DYK review, which I hope are constructive. I'm going to focus mainly on overall structure/organization/comprehensiveness issues.

Lead

  • Less common types are movable, double-deck, pontoon, and military bridges. This sentence mixes different types of categorization. The first and third items are basic bridge types that refer to their overall structure. The second is a characteristic of a bridge that could apply to a bridge of various types. The fourth is a category of use. Sdkb talk 08:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that confusing wording. I've re-worked that wording in the lead ("Basic structures used in bridge design include arches, trusses, beams, cantilever, suspension cables, and cable-stays. Bridges are configured in a variety of forms, such as viaducts, aqueducts, trestles,...") and also re-vamped the body text sections that categorized bridges. It now distinguishes between:
  • basic structures/building-blocks
  • materials
  • usages (including military)
  • designations/forms (viaduct, pontoon, trestle, causeway, etc)
Noleander (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • The history of bridges reflects the evolution of humankind's engineering technologies. Is this really needed or is it just academicese filler? Sdkb talk 08:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is intended to be an accurate, factual encyclopedic statement :-) But if it is not clearly so, then it needs to be improved. It is paraphrase from a source by an academic/historian. I'll try to reword it to sound less dramatic. Noleander (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the Industrial Revolution came mass-produced steel, which revolutionized bridge design and enabled the creation of suspension and cable-stayed bridges that spanned wide obstacles. "Revolutionized bridge design" is imprecise. If the main way it revolutionized bridge design is by enabling the creation of suspension and cable-stayed bridges that spanned wide obstacles, then it's redundant and just take it out. If there was some other way it was important, then let's specify that. Sdkb talk 08:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Removed those 3 words - not needed, as you say. Noleander (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming over some other areas...

Types

Without looking into it too deeply, I have somewhat the same concern here as I did in the lead. It just seems a bit arbitrary and possibly in need of a top-down consideration of structure. Why is it that military bridges get a subsection but, say, wildlife bridges or train bridges do not? Similarly, why is "Extradosed" under "Other types" rather than "Basic types"? Perhaps there are good answers (e.g. wildlife bridges are uncommon and train bridges have fewer unique design considerations) but these sorts of questions will likely come up at FAC. And if you don't have good answers, then you'll end up having to take a scalpel to add/remove large chunks of content at a stage when you want to be fine-tuning, which could reduce the likelihood of a pass. Sdkb talk 08:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, thanks for pointing that out. Bridges are typically categorized in three dimensions: material, usage, and structure. The article's section hierarchy was mixing those up in an inaccurate way. I have remedied this by: (a) renamed "Types" to "Structures" and limited its content to enumerating structures (not usages); (b) separated structure paragraphs from usage paragraphs; and (c) moved the "Double deck" section into "Design" top level section, since it is a design choice.
Regarding "basic structures" vs "other structures": that distinction comes from the sources. There are four, five, or six (depending on the source) basic structures, then a bunch of exotic structures that are not basic. The basic structures are building blocks, and some of the non-basic structures are composites of the basic ones (e.g. "continuous truss" structure consists of several of the basic "truss" elements, but it not a basic structure). There are probably several ways to organize all the various structures in the article, but I think it now is sensible and consistent with sources. Noleander (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation

This 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. Sdkb talk 08:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this suggestion - another reviewer had a related question about the "bridge vs tunnel" choice that designers face. I myself had the same questions, but upon investigating last month, the top-level (broad secondary/tertiary) sources on bridges barely touch on those topics at all; and when they do touch on them, it tends to be anecdotal (e.g. decisions/impacts for a single, particular bridge). I did find some primary sources on those topics (which tended to be obscure) and those carry less weight when weighing WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:PROPORTION considerations. The bridge sources, as you noticed, heavily emphasize engineering and history, and skim over societal aspects. WP:OR, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:UNDUE prohibit editors from deviating too much from the sources' emphasis. Since the sources treat those subjects so dismissively, any material on them will have to go into sub-articles, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:SIZERULE (Bridge is over 10,000 prose words). But I'll keep searching for good sources on these topics, since they are interesting, for sure. Noleander (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Profession

Done: changed to "Profession and regulation". Noleander (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding École de Paris (engineering), I looked in the French WP and could not find an article. Not sure if I should un-red it. Noleander (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A tertiary education institution will generally be notable, so I'd lean toward including it. Hopefully there aren't WP:WTAF (an essay I don't agree with) partisans at the FAC. Sdkb talk 16:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society and culture

  • After all the detail about bridge design in the above sections, this section is way too short. (It's a classic manifestation of Wikipedia's traditional bias — we excel at STEM/technical fields but fall short on social topics.) It starts to address the impact questions I was wondering about above in §Operation, but it doesn't even give an explanation about the things it lists, e.g. how does a bridge contribute to global warming. And all that is packed into a "Sustainability" subsection when really what we're talking about is the overall impact of the topic. Sdkb talk 08:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concerns, and I was surprised when looking for sources that discussed how bridges impact society (aka sustainability). I did find some sources, and they are represented in the "Sustainability" section. But WP:PROPORTION, WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:SIZERULE suggest that any additional sustainability material needs to go into sub-articles, because most secondary RS bridge-centric sources give only brief coverage to sustainability. My informal impression is that people are fascinated by bridges, and that fascination focuses on engineering, history, and aesthetics. The RS sources reflect that (sources want to satisfy their audience). As an editor, I'm presented with sources that heavily cover engineering & aesthetics, and I'm obligated to conform to the proportions that the sources dictate. I'm not at liberty to cherry-pick things, like - for example - global warming, and put my finger on the scale ... even if that topic impacts the future of humanity. To be clear, I did find sources that talked about sustainaiblity, but generally they were about infrastructure as a whole. E.g. "China is building a new highway system that has major sustainability impacts" ... but those sources merely mention brides in passing (as a small component of the infrastructure). That said, I'll redouble my efforts, and look for more sustainability sources. Noleander (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The major, reliable secondary sources on bridges rarely talk about sustainability or societal impact. The article text, in my best assessment, is proportional to the coverage that the RSs give. I have looked high and low for sources that were sufficiently RS/major to justify inclusion, but could not find any (but if you know if any I missed, let me know ... there is always a chance I overlooked some). See my reply above that begins Thanks for this suggestion - another reviewer had a related question... It boils down to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:SIZERULE. "Bridges" are a huge, broad topic, and I'm not at liberty to shoehorn in my personal favorite topics (e.g. Strait of Messina Bridge) if the sources are not (proportionally) covering it. Ditto for tolls, toys, games, and suicide. Perhaps a good solution is to create a sub-article Bridge sustainability or Bridge in society or similar? Noleander (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, suicide bridge has 73 sources, the first being one entry in a seven-part series by the San Francisco Chronicle. Granted, many of those sources are about a single bridge, and granted that the DUE bar is very high for a broad-topic article like this. But still, I don't think it's a synethesis violation to say that, collectively, those sources establish enough coverage to warrant a sentence or two, just saying something along the lines of Bridges have often been used for suicide, and some have installed barriers or signage to try to prevent it (a stat on deaths would be better than often if available globally). (Also, compare to some other things that are mentioned in the article: while number of sources in the dedicated article is a crude metric, Finite element method has only 40, and not all apply to bridges the way all the ones at suicide bridge do.)
More broadly (and this applies to my comments about the operation and impacts sections as well), I think it's OK to take a broader view of the sources. My guess is that many of the books specifically about bridges were written by engineers for primarily an audience of engineers and therefore focus on engineering aspects. But Wikipedia is for a general audience, so it's alright when making DUE considerations to counterbalance those sources by also looking at e.g. what bridge-related topics newspapers tend to cover. And they do seem to care about those things. Sdkb talk 16:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb - Yes, you have some valid points there. I think I'll prepare some additional material on those marginally SYNTH/OR topics (suicide bridges; more economic/social material) and insert it in the article before the FAC nomination, and leave it up to the FAC reviewers. It is much easier to remove material during an FAC review, than to add it. The article is already at 10,200 prose words, which is too large - in my opinion - but given it is Vital level 3, and is so broad, maybe the size is justified. Noleander (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new subsection on Suicide bridges at Bridge#Suicide. Noleander (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting

  • It seems like some of the references link the publication/publisher name, whereas others don't. This should be consistent. Personally, I strongly recommend linking all of them, since readers wondering about the reliability of a source should be able to easily click through to see what we've said about its reliability. Sdkb talk 08:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that: my intention was to provide wikilinks for all publishers, when available. I've gone thru them and added links. Noleander (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separating out unsigned references into an "Anonymous" section isn't something I've really seen before. What's the reasoning behind it? Are these distinct enough as a group that it really help readers to have them separated out? And as a secondary consideration, are we sure that none of the reports and such include any author info (i.e. are truly anonymous)? Sdkb talk 08:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the section title from "Anonymous" to "Unknown author" to be more precise. Grouping the "anon" sources in a single section is used in other articles, including some FA articles. The purpose of the "Unknown author" section is to help readers follow a cite from body text, to the "Citations" section, then to the "Sources" section. The WP guidance on anonymous sources does not mandate or even recommend a single approach. One technique (not used in this article) is to use author name "Anon". But that is not reader-friendly when using sfn/harvnb templates because the "anon" would appear in the Citations section for all the sources that have unknown authors. Much better is to ID the anon source with the title of the source (as Bridge does now). The next issue is alphabetization: should the anon sources be intermingled with last-name sources? That is an editorial choice, and I think readers will be happier with them segregated, because it is easier on the eyes to scan the left edge of the sources based on last name (or, title) separately. Noleander (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Many of the examples seem to refer to the Western world. It might be beneficial to, wherever there's a list, check to see if there are major examples from other regions that we might be missing (checking out other language editions of this article might also help). Sdkb talk 08:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that suggestion: I share your concern. I'll go thru the lists again, and check again for non-Western examples. I have tried mightily to represent Africa/Asia/South America ... but pickings are slim. I only read English, and the English source tend to focus on Europe & US, which skews things. Even in Wiki Commons, when looking for photos (where language is not a barrier) there tend to be higher quality (content and resolution) images for Europe/US vs Asia/Africa/So America. I did look at other language WPs, but the Chinese & Japanese are difficult to grab data from. German & French were more useful: but they had European bridges, so that did not solve the problem.
Here is one random example of what I faced: I wanted to add an image of earthquake damage. I looked in Wiki Commons, and first i looked for non-Western bridges, but the images were blurry or not informative ... even for the Kobe 1995 earthquake in Japan, which surprised me. I ended up using a USA bridge, reluctantly, simply because it was the country with a great quality image.
The article is a lot better now (for non-Western content) now than when I started on it, but I'll make another pass. Noleander (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear of these efforts! Yeah, I can see those issues coming up, and there's a limited amount we can do when there are fewer bridges in certain places (in which case the lack of coverage is justified) or there's less written about them (upstream bias). Sdkb talk 16:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAC peer review sidebar

[edit]

I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Too Many Photos

[edit]

I tagged this article with {{Too many photos}}. Right now, there are 60+ photos, which for this length of article is absolutely excessive. Problems with this many photos include: (1) excessive white space, especially in the "Operation" section; (2) difficulty reading the article, especially in mobile view (which most of our readers use) from having to scroll past so many photos; (3) an excessive number of photos limits the impact of specific, high quality and informative photos; (4) the article becomes less a written explanation of the topic and more a gallery of examples.

Someone should go through, remove probably half of the photos, as well as probably alternate the image location per MOS:IMAGELOC. Courtesy ping to those involved in the development of the article: @Noleander, Generalissima, Anne drew, and Sdkb:. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007 Thanks for taking the time to give input on this article. As you can probably tell, I'm preparing this for a featured article nomination. I'm confident that all the photos are appropriate and encyclopedic. The Wikipedia guidelines do not specify a numerical cap on the number of images. If any of the images were included just for decoration, yes, that would be a valid reason to remove an image. However, every single image has some strong informational content that is difficult - or even impossible - to portray in words. This article has recently gone through a good article review, and peer reviews by four different editors ... some of them extremely experienced. None of them has suggested an excessive number of images. All major reliable sources on bridges are extremely heavy with photographs, that's just the nature of bridges: All authors understand that the readers need photographs to fully understand what the text is saying. Do you have a specific image or two that you think is inappropriate and not informative? Why don't we start with that and go from there. Noleander (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge is 10,812 words of readable prose. Let's look at similar FA examples then: Castle is almost exactly as long (10,544 words) and has ~35 images. Antartica is 7,032 words and has ~34 images. Canada is 9,881 words and has about 33 images. Climate change is 9,446 words and has 48 images. Millenium Park is 8,139 words and has ~26 images. History is 7,400 words and has ~14 images. Bridge has 60. Here are just a few examples:

That said, the general takeaway is that the article is over illustrated. Bridge is an overview topic. Every single type of bridge doesn't need to be visualized to understand the general topic of "bridge". More specific photos can and should be used in more specific articles. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander I will also note that most (not all) FAs generally expect photos to alternate left and right alignment to at least some extent to provide layout "balance" to the article. The current all-right justification creates a stream of photos down the right side that lacks a "professional look". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted about 10 images; and moved about 5 images to left side. Noleander (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander definitely an improvement. Please consider the following though:
There are other examples throughout. This isn't a criticism of the article in anyway. I am just trying to push for some balance for what is a very high level overview article.
On the note of the text, since you plan on going to FAC, the following paragraph has five straight sentences that start with "Concrete". Recommend breaking up the repetition. Good look at FAC.
Concrete is commonly used in modern bridges, and many roadway bridges are built entirely of concrete using a beam structure, often of the box girder variety.[173] Concrete can be shaped into the desired shape by casting (pouring) it into formwork (a mold), and the concrete will adopt the shape of the formwork as it cures.[174] Concrete beams can be precast offsite and transported to the bridge site, or cast in place.[175] Concrete used in bridges contains steel reinforcing bars – embedded within the concrete when it is initially poured – which greatly increase the strength.[159] Concrete is a strong and inexpensive material, but is brittle and can crack when in tension,[176] thus concrete is suitable for bridge elements that are in compression, such as foundations and arches. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:17, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted those 4 images and the quote box. Noleander (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting within markup

[edit]

@Sdkb: - Thanks for improving the lead: switching the 1st two paragraphs is definitely an improvement.

That edit also changed the markup layout of all the Template:cite citations in the article (before, each template field was on its own line). I presume that markup change was an unintended consequence of the edit mechanism you used? Do you mind if I flip the cite layouts back to the original until the FA nomination is over? It is 100x easier for me to read & edit the citation markups in the original layout. After the FA nomination is over, I have no problem changing the cite markups. Noleander (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I used VE, and that must have introduced the change; it wasn't anything I did intentionally. Yes, feel free to change that part back to whatever is best for you. Sdkb talk 00:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]