Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monnow Bridge/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2017.

Monnow Bridge

 * Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Monnow Bridge. The bridge has some importance as the only fortified bridge of its type remaining in Great Britain. It also has some significance to Wikipedia as the symbol of Monmouth, the world's first Wikipedia town. KJP1 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hchc2009:
Comments from me below; the article's looking good, and great to see a fascinating bridge like this at FAC. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hchc2009, much appreciated. Article's been greatly improved by the process, and through your input. Many thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "some 500m above its confluence" - imperial equivalent needed
 * ✅ Done, and with the others, I think. Apologies, I overlooked this when Nev1 told me at PR that I needed conversions. KJP1 (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Carries	pedestrian traffic" (infobox) - capitalisation of pedestrian?
 * ✅ Done.


 * "Begun, according to tradition, in 1272" - what sort of tradition? (local, oral, historical?)
 * ✅ Done. With "local". Rowlands does mention the Victorian tradition which appears to have started it. Would "historical" be better?


 * "the borough was entitled to raise through Royal charter." - capitalisation of royal charter
 * ✅ Done.


 * "The archaeologist Martin Cook, in his 1998 volume Medieval Bridges, notes the significance of the date 1270" - I found it a bit odd to name the books the quotes were coming from in the main text; if a work was particularly important, perhaps, but I couldn't see why this (and similar examples) couldn't just read "The archaeologist Martin Cook notes the significance of the date 1270..." - it would be cleaner.
 * ✅ Done. And elsewhere, I hope. I've left it in where it seems more integral to the text, e.g. Heath below. Could remove if thought better?


 * "The Monmouth antiquarian Charles Heath, writing in his Historical and descriptive accounts of the ancient and present state of the town of Monmouth published in 1804, recorded that the bridge's "foundation is so ancient that neither history or tradition afford any light respecting the date of its erection."[5] Heath drew directly from the earlier guide to The Antiquities of England and Wales written by Francis Grose and published in 1773" - if I understand this correctly, is the key point that neither Charles Hearth nor Francis Grose used the 1272 date?
 * ✅ Done, I hope, by re-ordering. I've put Heath/Grose earlier, to emphasise their not using "1272" and followed with Cook. Better?


 * "An early account in the Flores Historiarum by Roger of Wendover may suggest that the wooden bridge" - I paused over the "may suggest"; I couldn't quite work out what the "may" was trying to say here.
 * Not done, yet. I think it is trying to say that even this, nearly contemporaneous, account is insufficiently clear to be certain Roger W is describing the precursor to the Monnow Bridge. Rowlands, with typical caution, says "..the text is not clear enough to refer to any bridge unequivocally."


 * "was added at the end of the thirteenth or start of the 14th centuries, some thirty years after the bridge itself was built." - worth being consistent on whether the article prefers "thirteenth" or "13th". Presumably the "thirty years" only works if you accept the "tradition" of the 1272 date? [NB: Cadw say "25 years after" the bridge on their website]
 * ✅ Done. In terms of the 13th century correction. Does "twenty-five to thirty" give the necessary elasticity?


 * "A murage was a medieval tax, granted specifically to allow for the raising of funds to construct, or repair, town defences." - typically, walls rather than "defences" - you couldn't spend it on a castle, for example.
 * ✅ Done. Replaced "defences" with "walls".


 * "including the construction of the gate-tower" - I'm assuming this is the same as the "gatehouse" mentioned previously? If so, worth using the same term
 * ✅ Done.


 * "By 1315, this work was still incomplete or required repair" - as written, the paragraph implies that the "work" is the work on the gatehouse, as opposed to the wider walls etc., but I'm not sure that's necessarily correct?
 * ✅ Done, I hope. Rowlands isn't specific as to what work was still to be done. I've removed the "this" to make it less bridge-specific.


 * "the circuit of walls/urban defences encircling Monmouth" - felt an ugly phrasing
 * ✅ Done. Yes an "encircling circuit" didn't really flow. Have ditched "circuit" and made it read "defensive walls, keeping the link. OK?


 * "Leland's map shows walls only on the northern side of the town" - you haven't introduced Leland yet?
 * ✅ Done. Double c*ck-up here. No introduction to Speed, and it's his map, not Leland's. Apologies.


 * "Kissack contends that the gate house was ineffective in defensive terms..." - the flow of this paragraph didn't quite work for me. We start with Kissack, a modern historian; we go back to 1902, and note it was used to raise tolls. We then say "Later historians dispute this," - but don't say who (presumably not Kissack). And we then go back to tolls again.
 * ✅ Done, I hope. I agree it wasn't clear and I've done a re-write and re-ordering. This starts with the tolls, and then follows with a, chronologically-ordered, run through the "defence versus revenue-collection" debate. I've also cited Soulsby/Rowlands for the latter, dual-purpose, view. Does this work? KJP1 (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "from paying tolls on fair days" - could we link fair days?
 * ✅ Done.


 * "The historian William Coxe in his two volume guide, An Historical Tour of Monmouthshire, published in 1801, incorrectly described the bridge as pre-dating the Norman Conquest and recorded that; "It commanded the passage of the Monnow and was a barrier against the Welsh." - this sentence didn't fit well here for me; it wasn't telling us much, other than that Coxe was incorrect (and again, didn't accept the 1272 date!)
 * ✅ Done. Agreed; it didn't flow/fit there. Have moved it up to the paragraph which discusses 1272, where I think it's more at home.


 * "Before 1830, the gatehouse was owned by Monmouth Corporation" - I don't think we've explained when the corporation first acquires it?
 * ✅ Done.


 * "transferred to the Duke of Beaufort as part of a property exchange" - could this link to the specific Duke of Beaufort, rather than just the title?
 * ✅ Done. The 6th.


 * "but Rowlands shows that the apertures are clearly visible" - first time you've mentioned Rowlands I think.
 * ✅ Done. Have now introduced him earlier.


 * "Until their banning, in 1858" - repeats the beginning of the paragraph (I think it only needs to explain that it was banned once)
 * ✅ Done. By removal of the duplication.


 * "it was decorated with flags and lights to commemorate the coming of age of John Maclean Rolls" - could we give the year here?
 * ✅ Done. 1891.


 * "In the late 1920s the top portion was replaced with twin electric lamps. " - the top portion of what?
 * ✅ Done. Sorry, unclear. The top portion of the original light placed on the gate.


 * "In the 20th century the growth of traffic using the road, with resulting accidents and congestion on what was a humpback bridge with poor visibility and narrow approach roads, led to many proposals to by-pass the bridge." - a long and slightly twisty sentence
 * ✅ Done. Rather like the road onto the bridge. I've re-worded but I'll leave you to judge whether it's better.


 * "The damaging impact of traffic on ancient structures had long been recognised; in 1721 The Society of Antiquaries had paid ten shillings "for setting down two oak-posts to secure Waltham Cross from injury by carriages." - no doubt true, but it felt like a digression in this paragraph.
 * ✅ Done. By removal. It was a bit of a digression, but was my only Fawcett reference, a book I recently found! As the first secretary of the Victorian Society, she deserves a mention. Shall have to find another use for her.


 * "The bridge and gate was formally recognised as an Ancient Monument in 1923" - would "protected" be a better verb?
 * ✅ Done.


 * "The new A40, built in 1965/66" - elsewhere the article prefers the "1965-66" style
 * ✅ Done.


 * "Monnow Bridge and Gatehouse has been a popular subject for artists, particularly since the development of the Picturesque movement in the later 18th century." - does Grose really work as a citation here? He can't really be commenting on the post-1780s? ;)
 * ❌ Not Done. He sort of does, at least for the early period. He says, "As a picturesque object they (the bridge and gate) have long been noticed by the connoisseurs." Thus, he's an early adopter! What do you think?
 * I don't think that statement really supports the sentence as written - he's writing in 1773, so not exactly late 18th century and pre-Gilpin's popularisation of the topic, and he doesn't actually say that they've been painted by anyone (the phrase would also apply to anyone enjoying the view with the picturesque in mind, for example). Hchc2009 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll either find another source, or re-word.
 * ✅ Done - by re-wording and losing the Grose quote.


 * "The bridge is 34.80 metres (114.2 ft) in length" - very precise (down to the centimetre)... not sure it was necessary to be that specific here?
 * ✅ Done.


 * "The room in the tower measures 36 feet long and 10 feet wide" - metric equivalent needed (NB: the article should be consistent in which it prefers)
 * ✅ Done.


 * "quarried within 10 miles of Monmouth" - metric equivalent needed
 * ✅ Done.


 * " the machine cut " - "machine-cut"?
 * ✅ Done.


 * "In 1996, the bridge was included on a list of potential World Heritage Bridges by the UNESCO advisory body, the International Council on Monuments and Sites. Such bridges must be of "outstanding universal value" as "a type which illustrates a significant stage in bridge engineering or technological developments." - a) not sure that it being including on a potential list is that valuable (?); secondly, "such bridges" implies it is a statement about this bridge, but I think it is really refering to successfully designated World Heritage Bridges (of which this isn't an example)?
 * ❌ I see what you mean, and I appreciate the survey dates from 1996, but I am inclined to think it does serve to illustrate the bridge's importance and notability. I don't know how UNESCO goes about listing World Heritage Sites, except that it's probably slowly, and with a great deal of lobbying involved. But the ICOMOS survey, in the Medieval Section, brackets Monnow Bridge with, among others, the Ponte Vecchio, the Pont d'Avignon, the Pont Valentré and the Charles Bridge. Not bad company, if you're a fortified bridge. Looking a bit further, here,, it would seem that none of these four have been listed in their own right, but the other three do get in as part of The Historic Centre of Florence, Avignon & Prague respectively. Maybe that's the issue for poor old Monnow Bridge. I'm very fond of Monmouth but no-one could argue it provides the architectural setting the three cities give. I have re-worded, however, to take on board your second comment. Hope this is ok? KJP1 (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I still don't think the quotation "Such bridges must be of "outstanding universal value" as "a type which illustrates a significant stage in bridge engineering or technological developments."" is helping here. The fact that Monnow Bridge was not made a World Heritage Bridge after 1996 means that we are really are saying that it was not of "outstanding universal value" etc. etc., which seems a strange thing to highlight. I think it would be better to note that the organisation considered the listed potential bridges to be "important types or technological turning points", which would be a more positive statement. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done - re-worded as suggested. I do think the very fact that it was up for consideration merits a mention. And see below.


 * "Another, roughly contemporaneous, is the Pont Valentré, at Cahors in France, which has been described as "the finest specimen of a medieval fortified bridge in the world." - I wasn't sure what the quote was telling us about this bridge...
 * ✅ Done - sort of! I agree, but I'd be reluctant to lose it entirely, as it's a single-quote source. And the continental examples do provide context. Have tried to trim. See what you think? KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that we need to say that the Pont Valentré, at Cahors in France, is "the finest specimen in the world." It doesn't tell us anything about Monnow Bridge - other than, I presume that it isn't the finest specimen in the world! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia would be very short of articles if we only wrote about "the finest" of anything! I absolutely agree that the implication of the source is that the Monnow Bridge isn't the best of its type in the world. But it is a very good example, and the only one of its type left in Britain. Having the context of the best of the type in the world seems to me to be helpful.
 * But what does the statement that "the Pont Valentre in France is the finest medieval fortified bridge in the world" tell us about the Monnow Bridge in Wales? There are always going to be the finest examples of anything (statues, bridges, castles etc.) If it was part of a comparison, it would make sense, but I can't see what it is adding to this article as a standalone fact. Why not just just say "European examples include the Frias Bridge, near Burgos, Spain and the Pont Valentré, at Cahors in France."? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit Conflicting - Here's my further thought - Thinking a bit more, perhaps an analogous case from Wikipedia would be the J. Mordaunt Crook quote I used at the end of William Burges. Crook said that Burges's achievements; "place him as Pugin's only "rival as the greatest art-architect of the Gothic Revival." It's pretty clear that Crook actually thinks Pugin was the greater architect, and most other modern critics would probably agree, but I don't think that detracts from the scale of Burges's own achievement.
 * It tells us that there is a better example of a fortified bridge. Isn't that useful context?
 * OK - quote's gone.


 * "The rarity of Monnow Bridge and Gate is reflected in its status as a potential World Heritage site,[83] a Scheduled Monument[90] and a Grade I listed building" - I thought this was mixing up three things; scheduled monument status (pretty common in the UK); Grade I listed - rather less common; "potential WH site" - unclear how significant this is, until it is actually granted such status (and this was 20 years ago, so presumably it didn't make the cut?)
 * See comment above re. ICOMOS survey.


 * File:Monmouth Monnow Bridge 1930 from Town Side showing three cottages no longer there.jpg - to be a valid UK anonymous tag, the evidence of the due diligence checks carried out needs to be added to the file description (part of UK law if anonymous work status is being claimed)
 * ✅ Done. Utterly clueless on copyright, as others could testify. Have changed image to one that's fine, I hope.
 * The replacement, File:Monnow Bridge (2).jpg, is justified under a life + 70 claim, which can't really work for an anonymous ~1900 work (we don't know that the photographer died before 1947); if anonymous and of this period, it need a valid UK anonymous tag, and evidence of the due diligence checks about the author etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * NB: The File:Monnow Bridge (3).jpg file is correctly licensed though, and would give a rare 19th photograph of the bridge. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sold!


 * Sources - the capitalisation needs checking; I think the MOS prefers capitals in sources - e.g. " The itinerary of John Leland the Antiquary, in nine volumes" should be "The Itinerary of..." Hchc2009 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done.


 * Could the web page citations give the author? It would make it clearer where the information is coming from. e.g. "Monnow Bridge and Gate". Castlewales.com. Retrieved 2017-03-29." is actually a quote from Rowlands, M.L.J (1994). Monnow Bridge and Gate. Stroud: Alan Sutton. ISBN 0-7509-0415-1.
 * ✅ Done. I hope I haven't missed any.


 * At least one of the web page citations needs a page number reference: "CBA Research Report No. 61". Archaeologydataservice.ac.uk. Retrieved 2017-01-28.", for example, is a 234 page long pdf! ;)
 * ✅ Done. I know, I've just had to wade through it again to find the relevant page. I've done this one but will look to see if there are more.


 * I'm not sure the publisher on "Yale Center for British Art, Lec Maj. "The Monnow Bridge, Monmouthshire". Collections.britishart.yale.edu. Retrieved 2017-02-09." is right; the website at the bottom gives its identity as "Yale: The Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art", no mention of "Collections.britishart.yale.edu"
 * ✅ - Done, I think, with "Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection".


 * "The noted architectural watercolourist Samuel Prout painted the bridge in the late 18th or early 19th century in a study now held at the Yale Center for British Art in Connecticut." - the citation attached to this just gives the date as "before 1814".
 * ✅ Done.


 * Hando, Fred (1964). "Monmouth Town Sketch Book". Newport: R.H.Johns Ltd. OCLC 30295655. is formatted differently to the others (I think you're using Cite News as a template)
 * ✅ Done. This dates from when I cited the South Wales Argus as an article, prior to having the book.


 * "Scheduled Monument - Full Report - HeritageBill Cadw Assets - Reports". Cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net. 1974-07-24. Retrieved 2017-03-11." - definitely published by Cadw, not Cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net, which is part of the name of their url.
 * ✅ Done.


 * " Henry Gastineau created a much reproduced image in 1819." - the citation here just says (unless I've missed something) "Monnow Bridge circa 1819. Engraving after a drawing by Henry Gastineau", without anything about being "much reproduced".
 * ✅ Done.


 * "Leland 1770, p. unknown." - unknown in that there weren't page numbers in the volume, or unknown in that we don't know which page it was on? I wasn't sure how to interpret this. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ Query - It's unknown, as in I don't know it. Worldcat tells me Charles Heath is actually unnumbered, so I used that for Heath. I just don't know what the numbering is for Leland, or indeed if he has numbering. Advice? KJP1 (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we know which editor added the reference in? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Guilty as charged, I'm afraid. It can be found on line but not with any numbering. I'll go and have a look where I got it. In an earlier version, I had it in as a web reference, not cited as a book. KJP1 (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Changed the Leland to the 1906 edition, which gives a page number of 46.
 * Really appreciate the time taken, and the detailed comments. Will work through today. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009, I think the Leland page number completes the issues raised, but do let me know if I've missed anything. Many thanks for the very detailed review. Greatly appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Chiswick Chap
The article is showing signs of polish since the GAN, and I don't have much to add now.


 * "having previously referenced the bridge in her wider study, The Fortifications of Monmouth published in 1896": if this minor aside is needed at all, it would be better as a sentence ("MEB-O mentioned the bridge ... in 1896, and wrote the first history ..."), or it could be a footnote.
 * ✅ Done. Minor aside!! Do you know how long and hard I had to search for that bloody pamphlet! [Deep breath]. You're quite right and it's now a footnote.


 * "walls/urban defences" is an ugly construction. Why not just say "walls" or "town walls".
 * ✅ Done. It was and it's now gone.


 * C otman is known largely as a watercolourist; you might add a gloss.
 * ✅ Done.


 * There's a disconnect between the Ove Arup study "not progressed" and the sudden arrival of a new bridge in the next sentence and only 5 years later (if you'll forgive the zeugma).
 * You're absolutely right - I just need to work something up.
 * ✅ - Done, now, I hope. Added a little text to fill the jarring gap. Hope it fits the bill, and the gap? KJP1 (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, perfectly.


 * Does the mosaic pillar have any relevance to the article?
 * ❌ It's tangential, I agree. You'll recall I took out the earlier photo which showed the plinth and replaced it with a better view of the bridge as per your suggestion. Which was absolutely the right call. But I'd regret losing it entirely, as I don't think it's completely irrelevant. If you have a look on the article Talkpage, you can see it, with the specific tile depicting the bridge. Unfortunately, accompanied by graffiti. I could remove, however. What do you think?
 * Well, what does it add? That the council think the bridge a distinctive feature of their town?
 * ✅ Done - plinth gone.


 * "tariffs could be levied" ... "five fat hogs": gives the impression that a load of 1..4 fat hogs would escape the tariff, surely an easily-exploitable loophole. I guess that Kissack's details are examples of loads on which tariffs had been levied.
 * Or five skinny hogs? In a lean year? The list is unbelievably exhaustive; "each hundred cat or squirrel skins" - did someone count them all?
 * I mean simply that we need to say something like "had been" rather than implying as it does now "were only permitted to be levied on", which can't possibly be right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done - message received, I think.


 * Support, through GA and to here, careful work has led to a fine article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, very grateful for these, and for the earlier GA comments. Will work through them today. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Very much appreciate your support, here and for the GAR. KJP1 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support -- I've fixed a few ref formatting inconsistencies, but wonder about the AmEng date format used in quite a number of them; i.e, 2017/03/27. I appreciate that consistency is key here, but strictly speaking, a BrEng article should use BrEng formatting.
 * ❌ A bit out of my depth here, formatting being one of my lesser strengths. Very happy to follow the consensus view? KJP1 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * May be a source reviewer could help;, what are the rules around this?  Cassianto Talk   07:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If the citation style being used recommends a specific date format, that should be used; otherwise it should match what is used in the article body. And for article body, MOS:DATETIES applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ To note - John kindly fixed these. KJP1 (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Would it be fair to assume that most will know what a "double decker bus" (20th–21th centuries) and "leased" (15th–19th centuries) are? If so, I think the links can be dropped.
 * ✅ Done.


 * There is a mix of commas and non commas in sentences similar to the following: "In 1796, the bridge..." compared to "In 1796 the bridge..." etc..
 * - Will work on these.


 * The first para of "Architecture and appreciation" section ends with three refs to ref 11. Would one suffice?   Cassianto Talk   21:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done.


 * Very grateful for your amendments and for your support. KJP1 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pepper
Haven't gotten around to going through the whole article yet, but I plan to (at least for a grammatical once-over). However, I am already sensing a general trend with the writing style that I think should be improved upon for a FAC. Many of the sentences have an unnecessarily complex structure, and that makes reading difficult and comprehension a bit challenging.

Take this for example: Begun, according to local tradition, in 1272, the stone bridge replaced a 12th-century Norman timber bridge. From its construction, it played a significant, if ineffectual, role in the defence of Monmouth, in the medieval era, in the English Civil War and during the Chartist uprising. 8 commas in 2 sentences! I have a few problems with this set of sentences, such as the choppiness that comes with too many commas and the ambiguous use of begun (what begun? the construction? the tolling? if it was only the construction that began in 1272, it surely didn't replace the Norman timber bridge until a few years later). A potential rewording could look like "According the local tradition, construction of the Monnow Bridge began in 1272 to replace a 12th-century Norman timber bridge. Through the medieval era, the English Civil War, and the Chartist uprising, the bridge was significant in its role of defending Monmouth."

Another example: The historian William Coxe, in his two volume guide, An Historical Tour of Monmouthshire, published in 1801, incorrectly described the bridge as pre-dating the Norman Conquest and recorded that; "It commanded the passage of the Monnow and was a barrier against the Welsh." Is it necessary to break up the meaning of the sentence with so much information about the guide which one could find in §Sources if needed? (The title is also incorrectly written here.) I would say "The historian William Coxe incorrectly described the bridge as pre-dating the Norman Conquest and recorded that "it commanded the passage of the Monnow and was a barrier against the Welsh."

I'll give a more thorough read-through as time permits (hopefully in the next few days) and will make a few minor grammatical changes myself for you to review. Let me know if you have questions!  " Pepper "  @ 15:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Pepper - any and all suggestions gratefuly received. Anything that improves accessibility will be great. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright, got around to it sooner than I thought. Overall, I think the content of the article is exceptional, though I still feel like sentences could be simplified and the number of grammatical issues lends me to not support until they are fixed. I started writing out all of the grammatical things I came across below, then realized there would be many of them. Would you like me to continue making suggestions on grammatical suggestions for your review, or shall I go ahead and make them myself? See examples just below:


 * Pepper - Many thanks for these. I'll go through and amend in line with your suggestions. Re. the above, I'm fine if you'd prefer to just go ahead and make them. I appreciate that can be less time-consuming than detailing them in the review. More generally, I don't think your comments heavy-handed, on the contrary, they will certainly help to improve the article. KJP1 (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there a specific reason why you aren't referring to it as the Monnow Bridge? This seems to be the most common way to refer to bridges.
 * I think this is just the way people generally refer to the bridge. If you look at Bagnall-Oakeley, its first historian, and Rowlands, its latest, neither calls it The Monnow Bridge. I suppose it's like Tower Bridge, which again isn't described with the definite article.


 * In the first sentence, wouldn't it be more important to have the bridge's Welsh name rather than the Welsh name of the river it crosses?
 * ✅ Done. It's in the infobox, but I've added it to the lead.


 * "Such bridge towers were common across Europe from medieval times but many were destroyed" - comma before but
 * ✅ Done.


 * Beginning of the second paragraph could be reworded as I suggested above. If you'd prefer to keep it the way it is, remove the comma after Monmouth and add one after War.
 * ✅ - Done, almost. The only bit I've kept is "ineffectual", as I think that leads into the debate about how effective/important is was as part of Monmouth's defences.


 * "It also served as a gaol, a munitions store, a lodge, an advertising hoarding, a focus for celebrations and" - comma before and to match the style of the rest of article
 * ✅ Done.


 * "In the 20th century, it suffered increasing damage as higher volumes of traffic, and the use of ever-larger vehicles, led to a number of serious accidents." - don't need commas in a list of two items, so get rid of the last two commas in that sentence
 * ✅ Done.


 * "The existing bridge was completed in the late 13th century, traditionally in 1272 though this date has no supporting documentary evidence." - reword to avoid run-on sentence, perhaps break it into two: The existing bridge was completed in the late 13th century. It was traditionally thought to have been finished in 1272, though this date has no supporting documentary evidence.
 * ✅ Done.


 * Second sentence of 13th–14th centuries as recommended above - either way be sure to fix "An Historical Tour of Monmouthshire" to the correct title "An Historical Tour in Monmouthshire"
 * ✅ Done - Hchc2009 also thought the full titles unhelpful, so I've taken them out, except where they seemed critical.


 * Similar for other books - the article is about the bridge, not the books. I don't think it's relevant that "Heath drew directly from the earlier guide to The Antiquities of England and Wales written by Francis Grose and published in 1773" though I appreciate that the history is complex and I wouldn't mind if you decide this is necessary to keep.
 * Kept, but slimmed down.


 * "However, this is unlikely as the gatehouse" - comma after unlikely
 * ✅ Done.


 * " the wooden bridge, and the nearby Church of St Thomas the Martyr, were damaged" - don't need commas in a list of two items, remove both
 * ✅ Done.


 * "The site of the battle is a matter of debate, however, as is the specific bridge involved; the local historian Keith Kissack" - could simplify to: However, both the site of the battle and the specific bridge involved are under debate. The local historian Keith Kissack....
 * ✅ Done.


 * "In 1297 Edward I provided a murage grant in favour of Monmouth, in response to a request from his nephew Henry of Lancaster." Commas! In 1297, Edward I provided a murage grant in favour of Monmouth in response to a request from his nephew, Henry of Lancaster.
 * ✅ Done.


 * Do we need to describe what a murage is if it's linked?
 * ❌ - Personally, I think the one-liner helps, but happy to remove if others disagree.

Didn't really want to write out any more comma/sentence structure things, below are remaining thoughts
 * First sentence in 15th–19th centuries could be split into two, currently is a run-on
 * ✅ Done. By splitting.


 * "In 1839, the gatehouse was garrisoned during the Newport Rising, the authorities fearing a Chartist attack which did not materialise." - not sure what this sentence is saying due to grammar, perhaps reword
 * ✅ Done. Hope the re-wording makes it clearer.


 * "a double-decker bus attempted to cross the bridge into Monmouth, caused very significant damage" - damage to the bus or the bridge (or both)?
 * ✅ Done. Both, I'd imagine. But I clarified as I think we're concerned about the damage to the bridge.


 * "the gatehouse was formally re-opened, on a weekly basis, in 2014." - does this mean the bridge is only open once a week? Clarify.
 * ✅ Done - it is indeed only open once a week.


 * "In 1795 J. M. W. Turner sketched the bridge and gatehouse during one his annual Summer sketching tours." - missing word, comma after 1795, summer need not be capitalized
 * ✅ Done.


 * The gatehouse stands 11.00 metres (36.09 ft) high. - specify if above the bridge deck or above water level or above ___.
 * ✅ Done.


 * Are other examples of bridge towers necessary at the end of Architecture and appreciation? Perhaps as see also links - I find the discussion of bridge towers in general to be off topic.
 * Personally, I think giving a couple of other examples of the type gives a helpful context. There aren't any others in the UK, apart from Warkworth, and Frias and Pont Valentré are closer in design appearance to Monnow Bridge. But others may take a different view, and I'm fine to remove if they do.

Sorry for the heavy-handed review, but the grammar could use some work and is not currently FA-worthy. Regards,  " Pepper "  @ 04:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No apology necessary. I'll go through to see I've removed all the unnecessary titles, and to do a further check on commas and general accessibility. If you had time to do so as well, that would be very much appreciated. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Working through it - came across a few more things:


 * Kissack describes the engagement as "the most resolute Royalist attack made (on) Monmouth" which saw eight of Kyrle's opponents killed and five captured." - something going on with the quotes, not sure what's a direct quote and what's not.
 * ✅ Done.One set of quotes too many.


 * "bequeathed a sum of about £120, the rent from his lands and houses" - rent for how long? yearly?
 * ✅ Done. "annually.


 * "The bridge was also used as a focus for significant local and national celebrations; in 1891, it was decorated with flags and lights to commemorate the coming of age of John Maclean Rolls, eldest son of Monmouthshire grandee Lord Llangattock; and as an unofficial advertising hoarding." - if you could reword this one for simplicity; breaking into multiple sentences is always a good way to go. I'm not sure if I understand the sentence enough to modify it without being sure that I'm not changing the meaning.
 * ✅ Done by splitting.


 * I'll do a separate MOS:LQ once-over, it seems most of the quotes are currently incorrect.  " Pepper "  @ 17:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Let me know what I need to do as a consequence.
 * ✅ In an effort to save you a job, I've had a go myself. Hope I haven't missed any/many?


 * At the beginning of 20th–21st centuries, you say the conservation program went until 1902, but the example you give as the end of the conservation work ended in 1897. Clarify on these dates to make it match.
 * ✅ Done. Internal works continued until 1902. Also moved the paragraph re. lights to improve chronology.


 * "undertook a feasibility study for a bridge further along from the Monnow bridge" = along in which direction?  " Pepper "  @ 03:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. "downstream".


 * "The bridge is constructed of seven types of stone, predominantly Old Red Sandstone, quarried within 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) of Monmouth." - was all the stone quarried within 16km, or just the Old Red Sandstone? Grammatically clarify.  " Pepper "  @ 04:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. "all" the stone.

Great, thanks for fixing that all. I fixed a few straggling MOS:LQ errors - it can be a tricky style requirement! Some last thoughts, and then I'll be happy to support:
 * I think you've made me more confused about "bequeathed a sum of about £120, the rent from his lands and houses" - are you saying that each year, the poor guy got paid £120 from the people living on his land and in his buildings, and then immediately turned over the money to the mayor so his people wouldn't have to pay the toll? (If so, sounds like he got ripped off.)
 * I've had another go. See if it works. You're right, except Jones was dead so maybe he cared less! I think what the source is saying is that, in his will, Jones left the revenues from his Bayliepitte rentals to the corporation in perpetuity, provided they give an exemption from tolls on fair days. It's a charitable bequest on behalf of his fellow citizens of Monmouth.
 * Ah yes, I suppose it would help if I knew what bequeathed meant.  " Pepper "  @ 03:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Consider changing the wording of "Until their banning in 1858, youths from both sides of the bridge would gather..." - I'm assuming it was the "occasions" that were banned and not the youths.
 * ✅ - Done - by making clear it's the muntlings, not the youths, that were banned.

Really appreciate your input. It's tightened up the grammar and improved the clarity, to the great benefit of the article. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, you have a support from me, with a closing remark. I was taught that in technical writing, starting by clearly stating the conclusion is a good way to provide the reader with a "sneak preview" of the what they will be reading. In encyclopedia articles, that fairly easily translates into 'start with a definition and the most important aspects.' What, in your opinion, is the most important aspect of the bridge? It's uniqueness? Age? Artistic value? Whatever it is, I think that's what the first sentence should contain. (And conversely, given that you most likely didn't answer "how far upstream the bridge is from the confluence of the Wye and the Monnow", that info may not belong there.) All the best.  " Pepper "  @ 03:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Many thanks indeed - for the review and for the support. I take your point about the hook, and will give this a bit more thought. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda
I took part in the peer review and was then already pleased with the article, and some minor changes made. Reading once more, just a few comments:

13th–14th centuries


 * First we have stone bridge, building + date and it's sources, then wooden bridge, then suddenly the tower. How about a paragraph Before the stone bridge (you'll find a better header), about the wooden bridge and perhaps why there was a bridge at the location?
 * This one requires a bit of thought. I'll come back to it.
 * ✅ Done - I hope. I've flipped the order of the first two paragraphs so that they all run chronologically: wooden bridge, then stone bridge, then gatehouse. I didn't want to re-write too extensively, but I hope it meets the need.
 * I like the order. Perhaps give the beginning an extra header, because 13th century doesn't match the timber dating ;)


 * Could the 1610 map go closer to what it depicts, - not the wooden bridge, but where it's mentioned a para later?
 * ✅ Done.


 * "As well as providing some defence ..." takes a long time until we know the subject of the sentence, - simpler? Especially since the defence function is questioned by some historians.
 * ✅ Done, I hope, by simplifying.

15th ...
 * "Since then, the structure has remained essentially unchanged, through regular maintenance and repair." I am not sure that I understand "through" here.
 * ✅ Done. Hope it's clearer.

20th ...
 * "the cruciform arrow slit on the front, left, of the gatehouse was restored to make it symmetrical", again not sure how to understand, this time the "left".
 * ✅ Done. Again, I hope it's clearer.

Architecture ...
 * "having a flat, "Caernarvon", head." - I may be wrong but think quotation marks AND commas are too much, just one might do.
 * ✅ Done.


 * 'and "illustrate(.) a significant stage in bridge engineering or technological developments."' - (.) looks irritating (to me). How about 'and illustrate "a significant stage in bridge engineering or technological developments.' or 'and show/demonstrate "a significant stage in bridge engineering or technological developments.'?
 * ✅ Done. Gone with the first.


 * "the other example being" - as there are only these two, how about "the other being"?
 * ✅ Done.


 * "Such bridge towers were common across Europe and, to a lesser extent, in Great Britain, from medieval times." - what's the function of the comma before "medieval"?
 * ✅ Done by removal.

Sources
 * I was taught to write "J. S. Bach", so believe it should be "Barley, M. W." etc.
 * ✅ Done, I hope, assuming I got your meaning.


 * I was taught to have isbn numbers all long or all short.
 * ✅ Done, as short version, again, if I got your meaning.

That's it from me, good luck! A great topic, served well! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Gerda - your comments are much appreciated, here and at the Peer Review. I'll address these as soon as I can. One quick query - long or short isbns. Are these with or without hyphens? KJP1 (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now addressed, I hope, with the exception of the first, which requires a bit of thought. I'll get back to that this evening. I've gone with short isbns, assuming I was correct as to your meaning. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Pleased, thank you! I should have been clearer about short vs. long isbn, - I didn't mean with or without hyphen, but ten digits or 13. I do without hyphens when in a rush, but with hyphens is easier to read. It's nothing I am particularly picky about, but have seen others requesting uniform style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem - I'll go through and make them uniform, with hyphens. But it'll have to wait until this evening! KJP1 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Sorry, slight delay, but now all back in long form, with hyphens. KJP1 (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I think we're done, but let me know if I've missed something. Again, many thanks for your input here, and at peer review. It's much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, my pleasure! Just one comment above, but however you solve that, it has my support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Leaning support, just a few things.
 * "Much of the medieval development of the town of Monmouth was funded by the taxes and tolls the borough was entitled to raise through Royal Charter." This does not appear to be mentioned or cited in the body.
 * ✅ Done, I hope, by the addition of a sentence at the end of the 4th paragraph of the 13th-14th centuries section.


 * "However, this is unlikely, as the gatehouse did not come into the possession of the Somersets until the 19th century." I might add a "the duke's family," before "the Somersets"
 * ✅ Done.


 * " "typical of the late thirteenth century and (.) developed from plain loops; the horizontal slits allowed an increased field of view from within." The parenthesised full stop is intended as an ellipsis or similar? Is this an ENGVAR thing?
 * Done. No, just a KJP1 error thing! Have re-worded to make it unnecessary.


 * "A depiction of the bridge in stained glass by Charles Eamer Kempe can be seen in the Memorial of the Boer War window in St Mary's Priory Church." I might add an "in Monmouth" to the end.
 * ✅ Done.


 * You refer to "Monnow Bridge Gate" once. Is this just a variation on your usual terms?  By the way, I'm not quite sure where the line between "Monnow Bridge" and "Monnow Gate" is, exactly, in the prose.
 * ✅ Done. By replacing with "gate". I think it's a relic of earlier confusion with consistent terminology between Monnow Bridge, Monnow Bridge Gate, Monnow Bridge Gatehouse, Monnow Bridge Tower etc. etc. All of which really means one and the same thing, the bridge and the gatehouse upon it. Hope it's consistent now.


 * Do we know when the tolls stopped?
 * Comment - a very good point! I certainly didn't have to pay them, as a school boy, even when accompanied by five fat hogs. I shall see if Rowlands gives us an answer but I don't remember reading it.
 * Very interesting and I shall make a point of visiting it if I ever happen to be nearby.-Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Wehwalt, very glad you liked it; the bridge, and the town, are certainly worth a visit. Thanks very much indeed for your comments. All very helpful, and I hope I've addressed them satisfactorily. Let me know, if not. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Support very enjoyable. It sounds like it would be worth a visit just to see if school boys are still accompanied by five fat hogs. . .--Wehwalt (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Image comments
generally it seems like every image is in the ideal section:
 * File:Old map of Monmouth, Wales.jpg and File:The Monow Bridge, Monmouth. (3375370).jpg: The license ought to be wrapped into a commons:Template:PD-scan tag.
 * File:Monnow Bridge (3).jpg needs clearer source information.
 * File:Monnow Bridge - John Sell Cotman, circa 1800.jpg: An 1800 image cannot be under a CC license, most likely. If the license only applies to the scan, it should be pointed out with commons:Template:Licensed-PD

Images could use ALT text. As an aside, is "Monow" an acceptable alternative spelling? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Not in the 21st century, but was probably ok in 1818. Many thanks for the review - I shall look to pick these up tomorrow. I've left a note on your Talk page as I may need a little guidance. KJP1 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think Jo-Jo is suggesting that for File:Old map of Monmouth, Wales.jpg and File:The Monow Bridge, Monmouth. (3375370).jpg you need to replace with  . File:Monnow Bridge (3).jpg seems to have come from the Monmouth Museum, at least from the user name, so that could be added to the source. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hchc2009, many thanks. I'll look to do these tonight, along with addressing Harry's comments, and then see where we stand. I think it will only leave a source review, subject to any further comments John may have. KJP1 (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done, I hope. But will just check with Jo-Jo Eumerus. KJP1 (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * May want to do the license template wrapping on File:Monnow Bridge - John Sell Cotman, circa 1800.jpg as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done, hopefully I did it right. Many thanks indeed for the image review. KJP1 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Geni

 * The bridge is one of only two surviving fortified bridges in the United Kingdom

Strictly no. There are a number of WW2 pillboxes on bridges such as The one at Putney Bridge tube station.

©Geni (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting picture, and an interesting idea, but I don't think it is was what Historic England, Coflein, British Listed Buildings, had in mind when they, not me, described Monnow Bridge and Warkworth Bridge as the only two remaining fortified bridges in Britain. I think the pillbox is a later, supplementary addition to the Putney Bridge. Added to assist in its defence, certainly, but not, I think, making Putney Bridge a fortified bridge in the sense meant. KJP1 (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from John
Oppose on prose. Needs a polish to meet the standard. We could start with the seven "however"s. --John (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * John - Thanks for your interest in the article. I wonder if you could give a little more detail regarding your concerns. I think the progress of the FAC to date shows I'm more than willing to amend the article in response to editors' comments, but you haven't given me very much to go on.  I can, and shall, look at the uses of the word "however" but, beyond that, I'm not sure how to respond. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed some "however"s and moved others. KJP1 (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "However" isn't banned, but it's a widely mis/overused word and seven in a few thousand words is probably too many. There's a temptation to use it as a device for flow. I'm not sure what it is about "however" above the lots of other words that are misused but it's one that comes up fairly often at FAC. I'll have a look over the prose when I get chance. I meant to do it today but I'm nursing a hangover! HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  13:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be very helpful and much appreciated. Quite happy to plead guilty to overuse, although I think part of the objection might relate to that old "rule" about beginning a sentence with the word - which is pretty obsolete these days. But a check over the prose would be of great assistance. Close textual analysis can be very beneficial for a hangover! KJP1 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We're now down to two "howevers", I think, and one of those is a Rowlands quote, where he uses it to begin the sentence.

- HJ Mitchell  and I have addressed the seven "however"s. There's now only one and that's in a quote. I've also tried to smooth out some of the quotes, by removal or by merging. Could you let me know if you have any continuing concerns regarding the prose. If you do, it would be really helpful if you could detail them. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work. The prose is much better now. I had a hack at it myself, and fixed the image formatting. I think the last outstanding problem is the date formatting; dates cannot be in YYYY-MM-DD form. John (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks for the comments and the corrections in the body of the article. I'll look at the date formatting this evening.  Just to ensure I get it right; the dates should be in YY-MM-DD form? KJP1 (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Thanks for putting together such an interesting and comprehensive article. I think it should be DD-MM-YYYY. Thee's a one-click tool that I usually use for this but it seems to be down at the moment. John (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a problem - I shall try to do it manually, tonight or tomorrow. Thanks again and glad you found the article of interest. It is a fascinating little bridge. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that was a hell of a lot easier! Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I figured it out. --John (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And appreciate the Support. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

 * It might be worth noting the previous ambiguity of Monmouth's status in Wales, or at least its proximity to the English border
 * ✅ Done. Have added an introductory para. in the History section, and a mention in the lede.


 * You use a lot of quotes. Everybody has their own writing style, of course, but you make much heavier use of quotes than I do in my articles. It can make the prose a little bit choppy in places and I wonder if some of them might be better paraphrased.
 * ✅ Done, I hope. You're right, I've been criticised previously for my over-use of quotes. I'm fond of using them but have sought to merge/reword/remove all those that didn't seem essential. KJP1 (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Further fortification took place in 1839 What sort of fortification? And being so late, were they decorative or was there actually a use for a fortified bridge in the mid-19th century?
 * ✅ Done, by removal. My confusion - Coflein's referring to the activity at the time of the feared Chartist attack, which I mention in the next para.


 * From 1889 to 1902, an extensive programme of conservation was carried out on the bridge, directed by Monmouthshire County Council So have the council got it back now? Because three paragrpahs up they're handing it over to the Duke of Beaufort. Okay, I see they get it back a few paragraphs later, so why were they spearheading conservation of a building that wasn't theirs?
 * ✅ Done, by adding a bit from Rowlands. Even after ceding the gate, MCC retained responsibility for the bridge and also, it appears, maintenance responsibility for both. The Duke obviously struck a good deal!


 * You have This period of conservation ended with and then Concluding the 1889–1902 renovations in the next sentence.
 * ✅ Done, by rewording.


 * Damage to the bridge and gate through accidents continued I would merge that sentence into the previous paragraph or move the last sentence of that paragraph into this one to keep the road accidents together
 * ✅ Done, by merging as per first suggestion.


 * funding of £1.3M was secured from where?
 * ✅ Done, it was local authority funding.


 * three machicolations I had to click the link; could really do with an explanation in the text rather than relying on the link
 * ✅ Done, at first mention.


 * Mary Ellen Bagnall-Oakeley describes them as "a very interesting arrangement" What does this add to the reader's understanding? If Mary Ellen Bagnall-Oakeley were a renowned expert her opinion might be worth quoting, but even then I just wouldn't bother for such a dull quote. It tells me nothing.
 * ✅ Done, by removal.


 * "obstructed the portcullis had they been present" See what I mean about quotes? You don't need a direct quote there; because they would have obstructed the portcullis would do fine, and is that bit less wordy and easier to read.
 * ✅ Done.

I'd suggest trying to work some of the quotes into the prose proper and I made a few edits which had the happy side effect of removing the last remaining "however" that's not part of a quote. If John has concerns beyond that, he'll have to elaborate and I'll see what I can do (I'm watching this page). HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  14:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Harry - many thanks indeed for the comments. Unfortunately, things got in the way last night, but I shall get to them in the next day or so. I get the point re. the quotes. I'm very fond of them, but this isn't the first time I've been accused of over-use! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated, and now actioned. Sorry for the slight delay - real life intrusions. I hope the amendments meet the need. I'll now try and action the image copyright suggestions made above and ping John to see if he has any further issues with the prose. That will, I think, address all outstanding comments, although a sources review is still needed. KJP1 (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Harry, am out of the country from next week, and won't have access to the books. Be very grateful if it were possible to finalise this before then. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm happy that my comments have been addressed. I have a couple of books which cover the Monnow Bridge in passing (Martin Cook's Medieval Bridges, which is cited in the bibliography, and R Cragg's Civil Engineering Heritage: Wales and West Central England) and the article is consistent with the descriptions in those sources. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  14:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Harry - Very much appreciated and many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Support from Nev1
Support with particular reference to criteria 1b and 1c. Nev1 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Very much appreciated, as was your Peer Review. KJP1 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review

 * Everything that needs a cite has one.
 * Excellent.


 * I fixed a few "p."s that should've been "pp."s
 * Many thanks.


 * You have "pp. 16–18", but "pp. 122–3". Should probably be consistent.
 * I'll work through these to make them consistent but it may not be until Friday. Out of interest, does MoS prefer one over the other?
 * No, it's up to you. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Sources mostly appear to be of encyclopedic quality. Exceptions:
 * Is http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk a self-published website? If so, why is it reliable?
 * This one is definitely fine. Although it is self-published, it was for many years the "official" on-line record for listed buildings in Britain. It's true that it has now been superseded by the Historic England site, but it has some useful additional details and much/most of the text on the HE site is a straight lift from the BLB site.
 * OK, that's fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Same question with http://www.castlewales.com/home.html. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit less sure about this one. It looks fine but I've pinged Hchc2009 who may well have a view. Given the text is taken from, and attributed to, Rowlands, I could probably re-cite the note to Rowlands if people preferred that.
 * I think Hchc2009's suggestion makes sense here. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done - with a cite direct to Rowlands.

Very grateful for the source review and the time taken. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * British Listed Buildings uses republished government sources (in this case, Cadw). I can't work out which source they got this one from within Cadw (otherwise I'd recommend simply linking to the original) but it was certainly reliable as of 2005.
 * CastleWales I'd be less confident about for the purposes of the Wiki... although the webpage in question does come from Rowlands, M.L.J. 1994, Monnow Bridge and Gate, Stroud: Alan Sutton Publishing Ltd. as you note. I'd recommend attributing to Rowlands, and then citing that it was reproduced on the webpage (which is where you've actually read it). I have no reason to believe that CastleWales would be misrepresenting Rowlands original text. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * All right, with that done I'm happy to support as to sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment from KJP1
Note to the coordinators: I think we now have nine Supports and green lights from the Image and Source reviews. My sincere thanks to all who went to the trouble of reviewing and who thought the article worthy of support. If it were possible to conclude the FAC fairly promptly, it would be much appreciated, as I'm abroad from next week and won't be able to access any of the sources again until early June. KJP1 (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ian, many thanks for wrapping this up so promptly. KJP1 (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.