Talk:Rigid-frame bridge

Untitled
Overall, this is a good article. I am surprised that there is not already an article for Rigid-Frame bridges, so this is a good find. The structure is the article is good and seems to be consistent with other articles with similar topics. The article is sufficiently descriptive and organized well.

I do have a few suggestions. First, the gallery photos have fairly large borders. I looked at the way you implemented them, and I don't see any obvious way to change that, but there may be a way to do it.

Take a look at this sentence: " Additional benefits are that less space is required for the approaches and structural details for where the deck bears on the abutments are not necessary". It doesn't flow very well, but I think it could be fixed just by adding a comma after approaches. One option you could consider for listing the advantages and disadvantages is to make numbered lists. This would clearly list all advantages and disadvantages in a way that makes them easy to find.

Other than that, I think it is a great article that meets all the requirements of the assignment.

Soper103 (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)=Soper103

(taylor's edit)

This article is just about done. The format, readability and level of information are all very good. I like your liberal use of linking words to other wikipedia articles, and makes me feel like reading this will help expand my knowledge not only on this topic.

As for suggestions:
 * I would suggest trying to reword your 4th sentence in the second paragraph of history. I think it could either be split into two shorter sentences with some slightly more individually descriptive terminology, or just differentiated better.
 * You may want to include typical bridge lengths for each design, following the precedent you lay in the last sentece of the singe span section.
 * In your recent advancements section, especially the first paragraph, you use 'this' a lot. Try to talk about specifics more.

Overall, very well done!