Talk:Monnow Bridge/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments
This is a nicely-polished article, fully cited, and with solid sourcing. I don't see much to comment on at GA level but may be able to make one or two small suggestions.


 * The British Listed Buildings entry, which is cited ([67]), seems to contain quite a few interesting details not in the article, like the "Caernarvon head" to the Southern arch on the West elevation. Maybe one or two things would be worth a mention perhaps.
 * ✅ Done. I hope I've picked up the, omitted, additional architectural details. KJP1 (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems that the same ref now has different names. Should merge [7], [68], [70], [73], [79].
 * ✅ Done.

Lead

 * You might want to mention one or two more of the artists who've drawn or painted the bridge as mentioned in the article.
 * { {aye}} Done.


 * "though Royal charter" -> "through".
 * ✅ Done.


 * Funded by the taxes and tolls: seems to imply the bridge paid for the town! I guess there were other tollgates, though perhaps the bridge tollgate was specially important. You might want to tweak the claim.
 * ✅ Done. Sufficiently, through making it clear the Gate wasn't solely responsible, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

History

 * Not clear why we say tradition is 1272, and then give prominence to a quote by Heath that just says date is unknown - why is the wording of this of so much interest? Did he and Grose not tell any more exciting stories of the bridge than that they didn't know when it was built?
 * ❌ I think 1272 is quite important, as it's given as the traditional date in all the modern sources, (Newman etc.), followed by the "undocumented" caveat. Unfortunately, neither Heath nor Grose do have any more exciting stories to relate. That said, I really quite like Heath's explanation for why the date is unknown - it's a more poetic, and less hackneyed, version of "lost in the mists of time." Would you be okay with leaving it? KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In fact, why are Heath and Grose not listed in the References? And maybe Leland, too. I see you've named him via Kissack.
 * A very good point. I thought long about this but my stumbling block is that I don't know the page numbers for Heath and Leland, and don't have them. The Grose page number I can pick up from the online version.  I shall put them in, as they certainly should be in, and think about how to get round the page numbers problem.  KJP1 (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. I learn from Worldcat that Heath is unnumbered. Leland's more complicated, with a very messy publishing history.  I've put unknown for present but will have to do more digging. KJP1 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "carried out on the bridge, this began ": either replace comma with semicolon (bridge; this) or use a full stop (bridge. This ...).
 * ✅ Done. By use of a semicolon. KJP1 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

In art

 * Perhaps the heading could be shortened, and it should use Sentence case.
 * ✅ Done. I hope, assuming I've understood correctly. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Architecture

 * I found myself wanting to look in more detail at the western front, but the image is mainly and unduly devoted to the "Millennium Plinth", not the topic of the article. Perhaps there's a better image, say File:DYKGatehouse.jpg.
 * ✅ Done. By replacement. I agree it's a better photo for the subject of the article. KJP1 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I couldn't see the height given anywhere, either of the tower, or of the parapet above the base. Perhaps these are details of interest, given it's the only fortified tower over a bridge left in Britain.
 * It would indeed be useful but I can't find it! I thought Structurae would definitely give it but it doesn't.  Will keep looking.
 * ✅ Done. Rowlands to the rescue! KJP1 (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Images

 * All seem apposite except for the plinth already mentioned. Personally I'd use a cropped version of Gastineau as the buffspace takes up far too much of the postage stamp area. Easy to do with the new crop tool, btw.
 * ✅ Done - In relation to the plinth. I shall see what I can do re. cropping but my Wiki technical skills leave much to be desired. KJP1 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Summary
There seems very little wrong with this article, and I'll be happy to pass it as soon as these very minor issues are addressed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate the review - extremely helpful and has greatly improved the article. Hope I've picked up all the necessary points.  Regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. If you'd just merge the refs mentioned above, I think we're done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅Done, I think. Really appreciate your input.  Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)