Talk:The Broomway: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:01, 16 January 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Broomway article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation Start‑class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted on 5 February 2013 by reviewer FoCuSandLeArN (talk · contribs).

Picture

This article would greatly benefit from a picture of one or two brooms, to give an indication of their appearance. Are any still in situ - or does anybody out there have any open-source pictures they could upload? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

It's fascinating that this dangerous, soggy way was ever considered a viable route to Foulness, and that anyone would choose it (as opposed to, say, taking a rowboat the short distance across Havengore Creek), let alone expend resources on the construction of the six headways. What were they thinking? GPS Pilot (talk) 08:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another why: Why didn't the track hug the high-tide mark more? Surely that would have been a lot safer? Also, after the split of the creek, both branches are at points less than 50 m wide. That's still a lot, and building a wooden footbridge would have been expensive... but they managed to find the resources to build the headways. Or they could have installed a rope-guided foot ferry.

© ??

The photo loaded in Wikimedia should not be copyrigthed ? --Pascal Boulerie (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 It's fascinating that this dangerous, soggy way was ever considered a viable route to Foulness, and that anyone would choose it (as opposed to, say, taking a rowboat the short distance across Havengore Creek), let alone expend resources on the construction of the six headways.  What were they thinking? [[User:GPS Pilot|GPS Pilot]] ([[User talk:GPS Pilot|talk]]) 08:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
+:Another why: Why didn't the track hug the high-tide mark more? Surely that would have been a lot safer? Also, after the split of the creek, both branches are at points less than 50 m wide. That's still a lot, and building a wooden footbridge would have been expensive... but they managed to find the resources to build the headways. Or they could have installed a rope-guided foot ferry.
 == © ?? ==