Talk:Grand Western Canal

Holcomb v Holcombe & adding links from villages

I think this article is looking really good.

In the "Construction" section the article discusses "rock cuttings at Holcomb, from which springs of water gushed". I can't find any evidence of village spelled like that in the area. Neither Holcombe, East Devon or Holcombe, Somerset seem to be in the right place. Does anyone have any further info or a grid ref etc on which to base an article?

It was Holcombe Rogus— Rod ^talk 12:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, would it be a good idea to add a note on the articles for relevant sites on the canal, to add a note saying that the canal passed through the village etc - I've done this for Nynehead & Holcombe Rogus but it would be useful elsewhere.— Rod ^talk 08:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nynehead Boat Lift

There is loads of info, photos diagrams & animations etc on the Nynehead boat lift at "The Boat Lift on The Grand Western at Nynehead". Nynehead Village Web Site. Retrieved 2007-12-06.— Rod ^talk 09:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

? ready for GA nomination

I've expanded the lead a bit in line with WP:LEAD. Are there other things which people still feel need to be worked on, or do we feel it is ready for nomination at WP:GAC?— Rod ^talk 18:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you leave it another day or so. I've borrowed a copy of Hadfield's Canals of Southern England. This book is not referenced in the article, but it has quite a bit of coverage. I may not necessarily add anything, but some reviewers look for stability in an article, so don't want them to start looking just yet.Pyrotec (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you find anything useful? Would it be OK to put this up for GA tomorrow?— Rod ^talk 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK put it up for GA tomorrow and I also aim to finish what I started tomorrow as well.Pyrotec (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Just needs some expansion and a few prose tweaks

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Details:

• Lede, I'm unsure about the tense in the first sentence. "... Canal is a canal in the UK which ran..." doesn't agree in verb tense. Not sure which tense you wish to go with, so didn't change it myself. As it is now, it reads awkwardly.
• Lede, Every sentence but one in the lead starts with "The..." Consider rewording to avoid repetition.
• Lede - I'd like to see just a bit more information in the lede. It feels skimpy compared to the length of the article.
• History section, second paragraph, consider cutting a bit of the detailed description in the second sentence, as it is now a bit of a run on sentence.
• History section, Construction subsection. The last sentence of the first paragraph probably doesn't need six separate citations, since it isn't a particularly contentious statemtne. Consider cutting a few. Same for the last sentence of the second paragraph, the "Bridges... " probably doesn't need three citations.
• Same section and subsection, the last paragraph is only one sentence, which gives the prose a choppy feel. Consider merging with another paragraph in the section or expanding.

Really neat article, just needs a few tweaks and some expansion on the lede to pass.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 20:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and comments (and edits). I've attempted to expand the lead and change some of the awkward grammar. I've also done some edits to the history section - hopefully showing that each of the citations was to a different bridge. If there are further tweaks which you feel would help to improve the article please let us know.— Rod ^talk 21:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! I'm going ahead and passing it. It was SOOO close, just needed those little things that someone who didn't write the article will notice. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)