Jump to content

Talk:River Parrett

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleRiver Parrett is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 7, 2011, and on October 5, 2024.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 1, 2009Good article nomineeListed
February 12, 2009Featured topic candidatePromoted
December 26, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 23, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 8, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
September 24, 2021Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Featured article

Tributaries

[edit]

I'm not sure about the tributaries. River Cary is mentioned in the header, but not in the list of tributaries, or on the river template. River Brue is mentioned, but links to the Castle Cary - Glastonbury - Highbridge River Brue, which has its mouth near the mouth of the Parrett, but is hardly a tributary. River Isle is mentioned on left bank, but is on same side as River Tone and Taunton Canal. Any comments, or shall I alter it? Bob1960evens (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was me that added the Geobox (about a year ago) & I may well have made errors, so as far as I'm concerned feel free to go ahead & change it.— Rod talk 11:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One famous island on the tributary is Pen Island (I think or so I am told by Creed Bratton on Creed's Quotes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.160.2 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 7 July 2011

There was an error in the River Cary article, which I've now changed. The water from the River Cary is now diverted into King's Sedgemoor Drain which joins the Parrett at Dunball. The Cary originally joined the Parrett near to the River Tone.Pyrotec (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help! The River Infobox has suddenly gone very large. I haven't altered it, and all the previous versions also show it large, but I am sure it was not at the time. (It now seems to be a general problem with lots of Rivers.)

It's Template:Geobox River rather than a simple Infobox - probably a problem with the box code if it is happening to other rivers. User:Caroig created them & understands the code - probably worth dropping them a line to ask if changes to the geobox would have produced this effect. Could also be a server problem as the main server has just been locked. Seems to be fixed now— Rod talk 21:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also corrected two dates and two times in the Bore table, but the times for November and December appear to be wrong. The Bore is normally between 3 and 11 minutes before high water at Avonmouth (which is a standard port in the Admiralty tide tables), but the Nov and Dec times are way out. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the times for Nov and Dec to 2 hours later, as that corresponds to the tide tables.Bob1960evens (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Format / Structure

[edit]

A lot of progress has been made on this article recently. It having been assessed initially as Start-class, then C-class and now B-class; and it is probably not far off GA-class, but I guess it needs some more work and a period of "stability" before it can be considered.

I was planning to add a section/subsection on bridges, as particularly downstream, over time, these defined the limit of navigation; and downstream the Parrett had loops that were removed by "cuts". So I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers - which suggests that bridges (and loop removal) could go in a section called "course". However, that leads to further "difficulties: this article appears to be internally consistent, but it almost totally "ignores" these guidelines; and is different in structure from, e.g. the River Severn, another B-class article, which possibly conforms much closer to the guidelines, but has a different balance to this article. Interestingly there are very few GA-class River articles and the three that I have looked at don't follow the guidelines all that closely, i.e. Category:GA-Class River articles. So the "24,000 dollar" question is, do we have an appropriate structure?Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that this article has improved greatly. I would argue for the use of the UK guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers to enhance consistency (having supported the development of those guidelines I would say that!). If the guidelines don't work for a particular river they can be ignored or, more appropriately, discussed to improve the guidelines for others. I don't think the rivers at Category:GA-Class River articles can be used as comparators as non of them is in the UK. I would look at River Avon, Bristol as a possible comparator with various uses (navigation etc) and changes of course over the years. Why don't you put the issues onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers or for wider discussion onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography to help achieve consistency?— Rod talk 08:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rod. I will sit on this for a few days so that I can clarify my thoughts; but I do like those suggestions. Also, I'm tempted, in the case of this article to start at the mouth and go upstream - another reversal of guidelines.Pyrotec (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although the guidelines suggest the course section should go downstream, they suggest that the lists of tributaries, settlements and locks/weirs/etc should go in the upstream direction, so it may not be so unreasonable to go upstream.Bob1960evens (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Course - call me pedantic, but...

[edit]

The section covering the river's course has two problems. It doesn't cover the whole river, it only goes as far as Langport, and it is also backwards - describing the course from mouth to source. This means that Drove Bridge is described as the first bridge, whereas it should be the last. See River Thames, River Severn (which doesn't describe the actual route but still lists tributaries from source to mouth), River Avon, Bristol, River Mersey etc. --TimTay (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I both (slightly) agree and (mostly) disagree. I see no reason why the River Parrett cannot be described in a direction from its mouth travelling upstream. That was the way I was intending to do it -see "Format / Structure" above. If it upsets you that much, we can reverse the order of the River Thames and River Severn articles!!!! They are obviously sub-standard in this respect, i.e. navigation is virtually ignored in both articles, yet it has been vitally importance for millennia. Langport was in effect the limit of navigation for reasonable sized boats, even allowing for transhipment at Bridgwater Town Bridge.Pyrotec (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So shall I go and change the Nile, Amazon and Mississippi while I'm at it? I am more than happy to reverse the existing text in this article, but would need help to add extra information about the river between its source and Langport. --TimTay (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer, but I don't see any need to reverse the order; and none of those articles are GA-class. My presumption is that this article will go for GAR when it is considered ready. There is only one GA-class river article in the UK and that is River Irwell. There are only eight in total Category:GA-Class River articles. I suspect that I would be willing to award GA-class to this article, as it is currently written, provided it meet the relevant criteria, if and when it goes to WP:GAR. (I'm currently doing my 25th & 26th GARs at the moment, so I have some experience of this process, but not as much as some other reviewers).Pyrotec (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The four FA class river articles (White Deer Hole Creek, Larrys Creek, Balch Creek & Johnson Creek (Willamette River)) and the three GA class river articles (River Torrens, Columbia River & River Irwell) that I can see all describe river course from the source to the mouth. Describing the course of a river as anything but source to mouth is backwards and counter-intuitive. Give the precedent set by the FA/GA articles I think it should be properly described in this article. What do other editors think? --TimTay (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is good this debate is occurring before GAR nomination. I would suspect any reviewer reading this & possibly looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers (which I pointed out in the Format/Structure discussion above), would ask the same questions. I am not aware of anything specific to the Parrett which would argue for anything other than the direction of flow to be the order for the course - but I'm always open to being convinced. I would be happy to help with the course between it's source & Langport & don't think it would be too great a piece of work to change the current text in the Course section - we could do this in a sandbox if people didn't want to "mess up" the article during the process.— Rod talk 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone read these articles, including this one, or this is abstract theorising? The section in the River Parrett, called "Course" is all about obstacles to navigation, i.e. bridges, shoales, etc; and a perfectly logical argument can be made for considering up-stream or down-stream passage. It happens to be written from a up-stream passage, as is the schematic map. This particular section bears no relationship to the sections on "Course" in the other rivers articles, which is why I suspect no one has read them. The guidance Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers is an honest attempt by (almost) one editor to provide guidance on the topic; and much of it exists only in bulletpoint form. There is very little discussion about it in the associated talk page and it would be very easy to pick holes in it (I do not wish to do so here). I certainly don't consider the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers sufficient or even adequate to ensure an article on e.g. the Thames or the Severn got through GAR or FAC. The four FA-class articles almost totally ignore shipping, but three of them consider recreational use, such as canoeing, so they set no precedence. The River Torrens only discusses bridges in Adelaide. All of them are good articles, but they are all different. I see no reason why the current "course" section cannot remain in the article as it is, but the title is wrong - it is about navigation and river crossings. What is needed is a section on "river course" as per the FA and GA; and a major expansion of the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers, its good and honest, but not really fit for purpose.Pyrotec (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your comments on the difficulties for shipping etc - should that material be in the subsection entitled "The Parrett Navigation"? I will have a go at a first draft for course in a Sandbox & let you comment before including it in the article.— Rod talk 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started the course section following discussions we had in August, and used the upstream direction because the guidelines suggest that tributaries, settlements, locks and weirs should go in that direction. Also, I have the information to write the article in that direction, and it seemed easier to add more to the end as I found out further details than to add it to the start of the section. I am aware that the next section contains a number of mills, but have not yet obtained adequate documented sources to add that information. The alternative (for me) to starting at the mouth would have been to start at Langport, and that did not seem sensible. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could we just rename the section 'Civil Engineering', 'Structures', or 'Features'? Bob1960evens (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of these questions can be answered by reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers. Perhaps the way forward is to remove all of this information from the River Parrett and put it into other articles on say the Port of Bridgwater and/or the Bridgwater Navigation; and then link it back into the River Parrett via summaries and {main}. Pyrotec (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater & I think they are relevant to the history of the river. I've now got the kids into bed & thrown together something on the "course", with some of the bits I find interesting. See User:Rodw/Sandbox/Perratcourse & feel free to edit, reject, or plunder for other things as you feel is appropriate. I'm happy to have this rejected in total or in parts as others want.— Rod talk 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it and its interesting. We could, if everyone is agreeable, substitute that for the existing "Course" section and copyedit it later. Presumably we keep the existing "Course" section and move it elsewhere, under a new name/copy into one of the subsections in the "History" section? Bob's future work on mills would presumable go in the same location? Presumably the schematic diagram has to be inverted as it is not "politically correct" in these intolerant times?Pyrotec (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also read it, and like it. I try to produce the maps so they vaguely reflect the geography, so the mouth is a lot more north than the source. I think the idea of having south at the top is a bit wacky. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one Rod. It gets my vote. --TimTay (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK as everyone seems to like it I've now copied in the new course section & renamed the old section to bridges - what do you think?— Rod talk 09:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What else for GA nomination

[edit]

This page now seems to be stable following the recent flurry of edits - what else do people think woud be needed before a GA nomination?— Rod talk 09:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the course section needs a few tweaks. Because of the amount of detail on the warehouse at Langport, would that paragraph be better in the (renamed) "Bridges and Structures" section, and for the same reasons, would the Westonzoyland pumping station details be better either in "Structures" or perhaps "Flood Prevention"? Also, do we have any sources for the technical details of the pumping station, the Brigwater trade figures, etc.? Bob1960evens (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with the proposed moves for the warehouse at Langport & Westonzoyland pumping station - do you want to do them or shall I? I don't have anything further on Brigwater trade figures. Do you mean the Burrowbridge pumping station? The bit in course on "Port of Bridgwater" could probably be merged with the section of that name.— Rod talk 18:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was the technical details of the Westonzoyland pumping station, all of which are currently unreferenced, as is the 103,613 tons for Bridgwater trade figures. I was wondering where the information came from. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The info re Westonzoyland pumping station could be refed to Pumping station web site sub pages. I believe the trade figures for Port of Bridgwater come from Farr, Grahame (1954). Somerset Harbours. London: Christopher Johnson. p. 116. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) but I would have to get it back out of the library to check.— Rod talk 08:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

The Stagg/Hydrology reference needs repair by someone who understands it. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting this (& doing lots of others). I've removed the Stagg ref & the related sentence & found an alternative source for the other text on drainage engineering etc.— Rod talk 11:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

River Parrett

[edit]

Being pedantic in this instance, could the Parrett Navigation schematic be improved (corrected)? There are two disused outlets, in parallel, from the dock to the River Parrett, each with one lock: a narrow lock on one outlet, and a broad lock on the other.Pyrotec (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The schematic now shows three locks. Is the one on the left before the docks or after? There is certainly a stop lock after the basin, but evidence for one between the basins is not easy to find. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The set up is variously described as dock and tidal basin or inner and outer basin. My left lock was intended to represent a lock between the dock and tidal basin. I could go and have a look tomorrow (Monday), it must at least 15 years since I was last there.Pyrotec (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a picture of the gates (only one set in view) on page 87 of Fitzhugh (1993) and this is what google maps currently show:

[1] Pyrotec (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another link [2] it appears more stable than the last one.Pyrotec (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked the map to use the DOCKS symbols, so it is a bit more obvious. If you are not convinced, please revert. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


fall rate in lede

[edit]

When trying to expand/improve the lede I noticed the fall of the river is "1 foot per mile, or 20 cm per km" - 1 foot per mile is 18.93 centimetres per kilometre - should we changed the number of significant figures & I can't work out a suitable convert template for this - any ideas?— Rod talk 08:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to help at Template talk:Convert#foot per mile, or cm per km the convert template now handles this & I've added to the lede - but I did notice that the article includes some miles/km and some km/miles which I will look at later.— Rod talk 08:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I think I've made consistent all mi/km and km/mi in convert templates.— Rod talk 11:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wonder if 19 cm per km implies an accuracy which is not intended. (I have just noticed it is now 18.9 cm, which is definitely not intended by the imperial measure). Bob1960evens (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. My error. Made less accurate.— Rod talk 11:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might I raise the issue that since the fall of the river seems to be stated in "feet per mile" and the capacity of the river is given in "cubic feet per second" that this suggests that the figures are likely to be massively out of date? The UK Environment Agency will have been working in metric-only since the 1980's at the latest. Maybe they are the latest published figures, but it might be useful to make it a bit clearer when they were recorded.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Hosgood (talk • contribs) 12:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted that the "Flow and Tidal Bore" section states 1976 and 1979 as dates for those readings, but the template doesn't make it clear, nor any of the statements in the intro.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Hosgood (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reference, which can be verified online and was published in 2008, relates to records on the river between 1966 and 2005. The units are presented in feet per mile and cubic feet simply because imperial units is the convention that has been chosen for the article. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 13:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I just went and looked at the reference. Metric throughout (of course). This is appalling! The UK is (and has been since 1995) an "officially metric country". Now, I know that we're still living with the weirdness of roadsigns in miles and yards, but that's an anomaly. Surely a modern article about the UK, written for a modern encyclopaedia, should at very least state the units as they appear in the references? I'll accept that maybe the river length might have a translation from km into miles to match the out-of-date roadsigns still in use here, but assuming it was surveyed by Ordnance Survey then it was surveyed in metres. The rest of the article (apart from direct quotes from historic documents) should be all-metric. Especially the scientific stuff. This article looks like a reprint from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica! Steve Hosgood (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can recollect the majority of sources used for this article use imperial rather than metric. Which units to use for UK articles (where a mixture of both are in common usage) has been discussed many times. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) requires consistency within an article (hence some have been converted from metric to imperial) and specifically includes:
    • UK articles more often put metric units first, but imperial units may be put first in some contexts. These include:
      • Miles for distances, miles per hour for road speeds and miles per imperial gallon for fuel economy
      • Feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight measurements
      • Imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk
I'm sure further debate would be welcomed but this issue is wider than this specific article.— Rod talk 15:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style states "Wikipedia is not country-specific; apart from some regional or historical topics, use the units in most widespread use worldwide for the type of measurement in question" also "If a quantity is defined in a given set of units and is therefore exact in them, put those units first". I take Rod's point about the exceptions for the UK like putting miles first on longer distances (though I'd personally only do that for road travel distances, and would normally give a river length in km). Doesn't look like the accepted UK exceptions of pints for draught beer will get used in this article(!), nor personal heights or weights. As you say, Rod, the issue is wider than this article but I gotta say, as a Brit, the unexpectedly heavy use of Imperial measures in the (featured) article did draw my attention. Presumably others too. Steve Hosgood (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the article had some units in metric and others in imperial (as your comment above seems to advocate) the article would never be accepted as a featured article (and therefore couldn't appear on the front page). Previous discussions on this (that I'm aware of) include:
These regional/national variations are treated in the same was as the difference between US & British English. Applying the one that applies to the topic of the article. As this is an English river, UK variants apply.— Rod talk 16:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? "If the article had some units in metric and others in imperial [...] the article would never be accepted as a featured article"? That's a rotten criterion for a featured article! I read the third of Rod's references above (very interesting, I see this comes up a lot) and conclude that MOS for UK articles *seems* to be saying "use metric units normally, except for a small list of oddities where you use imperial first with a metric conversion". It does not seem to be saying "pedantically use imperial units throughout even where no living Brit would use such units". Which seems to be the case here - the section on "Port of Bridgwater" even puts tonnes first (despite it being claimed above that any instance of metric-first should have disqualified the article for FA status!) followed by a conversion to Olde English short tons which haven't been used in the UK since 1824! This is pedantically kept up even on statements about cargoes shipped from the port in 2006 by which time even imperial long tons had become totally obsolete. Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burrowbridge Pumping Station

[edit]

Is this a museum, as stated? The Westonzoyland museum site suggests it is not, but is owned by a haulage company. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leete-Hodge, Lornie (1985). Curiosities of Somerset. Bodmin: Bossiney Books. p. 82. ISBN 0906456983. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) says yes but that is a 1985 book so may well have changed. IoE calls it Saltmoor Pumping Station at record but no help on status - probably best to remove the ref to museum.— Rod talk 11:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the tense, and mentioned most of its contents are now at Westonzoyland. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clyse or Clyce

[edit]

Does anyone know the correct spelling, or is this a local term used verablly & therefore either is correct - but we do use both spellings in the article.— Rod talk 15:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct, and the spellings have local variations. The local OS maps use two-'c's and Williams (1970) uses one-'s'&one-'c'; but any given article should only use one spelling (unless they are direct quotes from inconsistent sources).Pyrotec (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What else is needed to get this article to FA

[edit]

This article has now been a fairly stable Good Article for nearly a year and I am looking for ideas about what would be needed to get it to meet the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria? This is one part of the Featured topic about Physical geography of Somerset. The rules about FT's have changed and we need to get one of the GAs included in the topic up to FA status or the whole FT will be demoted to a Good topic. Any ideas appreciated.— Rod talk 21:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't tend to participate at WP:FAC. However, I suspect that some sections would be regarded as under-referenced for FAC. I, obviously, regarded as statisfactory for GA. I will try and fix some of these. Pyrotec (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Set Malleus loose on it. :-) Pyrotec (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you know what you're suggesting? I can be a bit of a butcher. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Butchers can produce the best cuts:-) Thanks for your work on it. I'm thinking of putting it up for peer review next & see what other comments are received before stepping into FAC.— Rod talk 08:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more references but have a couple of questions:

  • Can anyone provide references for the dates & amounts in the Decline section? I presume they are from the Hadfield book, but I don't have a copy so can't check.
  • Can I standardise the referencing - we have 3 books in a bibliography section but other with multiple uses in the reference section. Also some do not use cite web, cite book etc - I will convert these if others are happy with this approach?
  • Stanmoor/Oath locks/sluice/clyce are in "Buildings & structures" (unreferenced), but also in "Course" and "Construction" - do we need all the mentions & we need to make sure they are consistent (& referenced).
  • Where does the definition as a "highland carrier" come from?
  • Should linked rivers be changed from a list into prose?

Any other thoughts/edits appreciated.— Rod talk 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You also have books and multi-page pdf reports being cited in the reference section (as apposed to the bibliography) without page numbers.
I don't believe that Williams' (ref 24) provides the reference for what you are claiming. Can you provide a page no, so that I can check it?

Pyrotec (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the Williams book from the library, but don't own a copy - I've deleted that sentance. I'll have a look at the rest of the refs for page nos.— Rod talk 17:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember seeing tide timetables in WH Smiths, Bridgwater, a few years ago (adjacent to the tills). I never looked at them and I don't know whether they are still sold - I think they were 90p or £1.50 (that sort of price range). I can't see much data in the books I have to hand on Messrs Stuckey & Bagehot's Parrett Navigation Company, but I think the early canal company was known as the Parrett Navigation Company. So there is uncertaintly/confusion. I suggest that it is just delinked. Pyrotec (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have one reference for the tidal bore. This is a reprint of a book first published by Methuen and now in the public domain. It says the bore occurs at the turn of the tide.
  • Wade, G.W.; Wade, J.H (2008). "Description of Places in Somerset arranged alphabetically". Somerset. London: Bastian Books. p. 64. ISBN 9780554335032. The river, which ministers largely to its prosperity, adds little to its attractions. It, however, furnishes the town twice a day with a mild sensation in the shape of a bore, which at the turn of the tide rolls up the river-bed like a miniature breaker.

Jezhotwells (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some points to consider for FA review

[edit]

Hi, Rodw|Rodw asked me to look over the article. I haven't brought an article to FA myself, but these points may need addressing:

  • a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
    • Course: The two rivers give their name to Parrett and Axe Parish Council, which administers those two villages. Which two villages? Surely that is Chedington and South Perrott>
    • Salisbury to Exeter railway line could be wikified
    • the resulting light soil made the area important for the production of flax and for market gardening. maybe add in the past?
    • The Lock at the deserted medieval village ..., lock should be lower case.
    • 2 sentences start It ...
    • Suggest separating out the natural history to its own section, perhaps combined with the Eels section.
    • Differentiate the Devon and Somerset Axes.
    • next to the wharf, via a clyce. ... although wikilinked, clyce would benefit from explanation as a local word.
    • Suggest move the historical detail from the Course section to the History section.
    • ... the White House Inn, a licensed victualler, on the Pawlett bank traded from 1655 to 1897.[34] The river crossing has fallen out of use, and the former White House Inn was demolished in about 1930. Suggest replace second occurrence of White Horse inn, with juts the inn. Replace in about with circa.
    • a result of Acts of Parliament passed in 1699 and 1707, for making and keeping the River Tone navigable from Bridgewater to Taunton, and a third act with a similar purpose was passed in 1804. Italics should be replaced by quotes.
    • Bridges and structures: The stone abutments of that bridge were reused by the later bridge, ... Throughout this section there is a lot of repetitive use of the word bridge. Of course some of that is inevitable given the subject matter. But perhaps some thought could be given to using other words such as crossing or even just it.
    • River Parrett Trail should be wikified.
    • Flood prevention: Engineering works they undertook at the Parrett, King's Sedgemoor Drain, and River Brue systems, were an attempt to ensure that agricultural land benefitted from a potable water supply in the groundwaters from the Quantock Hills to the coastline. suggest that this is a little clumsy and should be slightly reworded, perhaps Engineering works were undertaken ...
  • Can anyone else with more specialist/expert knowledge help interpret this? There is description of the "Parrett at Chiselborough" which talks about lagged response, crest tapping & POR which are beyond me, with data on page 140 & 142. Help appreciated.— Rod talk 21:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest something like:
  • The Parrett has a mean flow, as measured by the Environment Agency at a gauging station at Chiselborough, of 67.45 cubic feet per second (1.910 m3/s), with a peak of 6,109 cubic feet per second (173.0 m3/s) on 30 May 1979 and a minimum of 2.5 cubic feet per second (0.071 m3/s) on 22 August 1976.<ref name="hydoreg">{{cite book|title=UK Hydrographic Register|editor=Marsh, Terry and Hannaford, Jamie|publisher=Centre for Ecology & Hydrology|location=Wallingford, Oxfordshire|date=2008|series=Hydrological data UK series|pages=128|isbn=978-0-9557672-2-7|url=http://www.ceh.ac.uk/products/publications/documents/HydrometricRegister_Final_WithCovers.pdf}}</ref>
  • I have added the figures to the infobox. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brilliant thank you. Where should this go: course or flood prevention? Also how do we demonstrate that these numbers come from a point nearer the source than the main part of the river and that most of the flooding occurs downstream from this point?— Rod talk 09:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
    • I think that it meets these criteria.
  • (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate
    • The references to Priestly's work [3], should cite the original work as the URL is just a convenience link.
  • Done
    • OK
  • (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
    • OK
  • It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
    • (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
    • The lead should contain mention of the natural history and perhaps the hydrology.
  • (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
    • Suggest, split out natural history to its own section, perhaps combined with Eels.
  • c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
    • Ok, I think
    • The infobox image needs alt text
  • Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • OK, I think.

Well, that is my take. Please leave a comment if you want explanations, etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comment, however I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. I'm assuming Parrett is a corruption of Paradie which means barge hence "barge river" - but is there an alternative or more explanation needed?— Rod talk 13:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the word 'barse' is a mispelling of barge. I don't think paradie is the Latin for barge. 'Barca' is a Latin word for barge. Does Robinson give any basis for his assertion? Ning-ning (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh.. Your latin is better than mine. I will have to get the Robinson book from the library after Xmas, but I have seen criticism elsewhere of his assumptions without giving any basis. Should we just remove the claim until it can be better explained/sourced?14:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think it probably is wrong. Ning-ning (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone.— Rod talk 14:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found this source:
Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The University of Lampeter, Welsh department [4], suggests parwydydd - partition. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A similar explanation from "From Peraidd, Welsh, the sweet or delicious river", is given for the surname at Ancestor search (but my Welsh is not better than my latin).— Rod talk 19:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just got hold of a copy of Crowden, James (1996). In Time of Flood: The Somerset Levels-The River Parrett. George Wright (Photographer). Yeovil: The Parrett trail Partnership. ISBN 1899983252., amongst other books in trying to deal with page numbering queries as part of the FAC. This book lends support to the Welsh/Cornish origin suggesting Pedair, pedr=four; Rit meaning flow. So in this case the four flows or streams are the Tone, Yeo, Isle & Parrett. (based on Ekwall 'English River Names, OUPress 1928.— Rod talk 15:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Costen "The late Saxon Landscape" in Mike Aston (edr)(1988) Aspects of the Mediaeval Landscape of Somerset discuses Anglo-Saxon placenames derived by adding -tun onto river names. North & South Petherton come from Parrett + tun. It does not help with the origin of the name "Parrett", but it does indicate that it has been called that (or something similar) since at least Anglo-Saxon times. Pyrotec (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of what might be still needed for FA

[edit]

Thanks to everyone who has contributed here and on Wikipedia:Peer review/River Parrett/archive1. I think most of the issues raised have been addressed, but there are still a few which might need more work:

  • No reference for timings of the tidal bore - should we just remove that sentence?
  • Etymology - as discussed above is there strong enough evidence for the Welsh origin or should we just leave it out?
  • Linked Waterways - Is this needed? They are all in the infobox & mentioned in the article. If it is needed should it still be a list?
  • Route and points of interest, See also & References - The layout here isn't ideal with the map coordinates, link to Commons & Waterways portal pushing everything to the left - does anyone have any good ways of improving the layout?

Is there anything else outstanding, or new issues anyone can identify? I'm away for the next few days, but would appreciate any comments or contributions as I would like to do the FAC nomination early in January.— Rod talk 20:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the uncited bits on the tidal bore & the linked waterways. I've closed the peer review and nominated at FAC. Any help in responding to issues raised will be appreciated.— Rod talk 18:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offer

[edit]

I am sorry to see this did not pass at FAC. If you want, I will be glad to finish my review / copyedits, just let me know on my talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help & the offer to continue the review to improve the article. Would it be best to do it here on the talk page or shall I open another peer review?— Rod talk 09:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the reasons for the failure are not given - it just failed, but we could perhaps make a number of educated guesses why that decision was made. Ruhrfisch has given valuable, and much appreciated, advice. I think it would be very helpful if Ruhrfish could provide help as part of a PR, but whatever form it takes it will be of great help. Pyrotec (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A PR is supposed to wait two weeks after an unsuccessful FAC, so here would be better initially, then a PR. The FAC had run long enough without any general supports that I think it was closed to help clear out the queue (I am a co-nom on one that is just waiting for an image review now, reviewers are scarce).
One thing I noticed was that some of the items removed from the course (like the castle undercroft) were not added back in at history. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put the bit about the castle undercroft into Bridgwater Castle as it didn't directly relate to the river.— Rod talk 12:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit bizarre that it was just failed whilst the issues raised were being dealt with. Oh well, I shall take another look and see if i can spot anything that could be improved. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

First arbitrary section

[edit]
  • The lead seems fine to me - I am rereading the whole article, but assume I will not find much in the first sections (what I already worked on in FAC).
  • Course - I think this would benefit from a map showing the general course of the river and the major places mentioned. I looked at http://www.openstreetmap.org/ and was surprised how far inland Bridgwater is, for example.
  • I think its better than I could do, however could the river be made more prominent (? darker blue or something) as beyond Bridgwater it is very difficult to make it out.— Rod talk 20:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks that's much better & I'd be happy for that to go into the article now - but if some of the tributaries etc could be marked on & maybe lables for Langport & Dunball that would be even better.— Rod talk 18:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I added the two towns and all the rivers except the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal. The problem is that it does not appear very prominently (or at all) on the map I am using, plus the area where it flows is between the M5 and the railway line, so there is not a lot of room for labels there anyway. If you want I can add a label left of the M5 with an arrow. Or I can leave it off, just let me know. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks great now & I see what you mean re Bridgwater and Taunton Canal. I'd be very happy for it to go on the article now. I supoose I really ought to learn how to maps like this as well. Thanks.— Rod talk 18:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the base map again and saw that the canal is present, just in a color that is very close to that used for roads, etc. I made the canal about the same color as the other rivers and it stood out more, and so I labeled it as described above. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a bit awkward The King's Sedgemoor Drain drains into the River Parrett at Dunball, next to the wharf, via a clyce, which is a local word for a sluice and is sometimes spelt clyse. how about something like The King's Sedgemoor Drain drains into the River Parrett next to the wharf at Dunball; it enters via a clyce (or clyse), which is a local word for a sluice.
  • Done
  • Is the "it" needed here? The clyce has been moved approximately 500 metres (0.3 mi) downstream from its original position and it now obstructs the entrance to the small harbour adjacent to the wharf.[15]
  • Done
  • Does the use of italics in this meet WP:ITALIC? "Much of what was the northern end eroded away or now exist as "islands" visible at low tides within an intertidal area of mud known as the Stert Flats.[16]"
  • Done
  • Any reason why the ref can't be at the very end of the sentence here ...including the River Huntspill from the Somerset Levels, and the Cannington Brook from the "Pawlett Hams",[17] also empty into the bay.
  • Done
  • Landscape would it read better with a different verb here? The River Parrett and the Severn Estuary were likely [are thought? are believed?] to have been used for riverine bulk transportation of people and supplies in Somerset under Roman and later Anglo-Saxon and Norman occupation.[20]
  • Done
  • Would it help to add AD or CE here? Roman Somerset, which lasted for over 250 years until 409 [AD? CE?],[21] had various settlements...
  • Second paragraph in Landscape uses AD: The Parrett was established as the border between the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Wessex and the Brythonic kingdom of Dumnonia in AD 658,... I am OK with not using it, just need to be consistent.
  • "near to"? Could it just be "near? It is thought a ford, usable only at low tide, crossed the river near to its mouth, between Combwich and Pawlett (east bank), since Roman times.
  • Done
  • I am also not sure about the "since Roman times" at the end of the previous sentence - could it be added to the next sentence? This crossing, at the western end of the Polden Hills, [was known since Roman times and] lay on the route of a Saxon herepath.[29]
  • Done
  • upstream? The River Tone was also diverted by the Abbot of Athelney, and other land owners, into a new embanked channel, joining the Parrett up stream from its original confluence.[24][35]
  • Done
  • The second to last pargraph in the Landscape is only two sentences on bricks - could it be combined with either the preceding or the following pragraph?
  • Done
  • Port of Bridgwater - watch WP:OVERLINKing - common terms like port probably do not need to be linked, and more importantly watch for multiple links to the same article, for example Bridgwater is linked towards the end of the Landscape section and then again here. Some people only link a term once per article, others link once in the lead and then at the first use in the article.
  • I think "1975 and 1976" or perhaps "1975–1976" would be much better than "1975/6" in This was followed by Hinkley Point B nuclear power station which began operation in 1975/6.[64] I am also unclear how it can begin operation in two different years?
  • Checked & replaced 1976
  • Per the MOS, titles are generally not used The link was removed as part of the railway closures made by Dr. Beeching in the 1960s. also since Dr. Beeching did not personally close the link, perhaps it would read better as something like The link was removed as part of the railway closures made as a result of the Beeching Report in the 1960s.
  • Done
  • I know this was discussed earlier, but I think the order of units has to be consistent. So if English / Imperial units are used first elsewhere, they should be here too (but tonnes is metric and comes first in this section). In the next section, tons (English) come first. I know this is picky, but it has to be consistent for the next FAC.
  • I would double check the original sources and see what Pyrotec knows. My guess is that when referring to weights, it is the long ton as that is the UK standard (about 1016 kg), though newer sources might use the metric tonne (1000 kg). When talking about ships, my guess is that it is tonnage, which is something else entirely. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to the amount of cargo handled at Dunball and elsewhere then tonnes is clearly what is meant. This means we will have inconsistency as not everyone understands the complicated and inconsistent usage of units in the UK. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fitzhugh uses the term "Ton" (i.e. the well loved 20 cwt ton) - which the US call the long ton, and their measurement is the short ton; as does Body and Gallop and Farr. These are the original units, so conversion to tonnes is merely that, i.e. conversion. I think that it is ludicrous to convert original references to metric tonnes and then add the conversion back to tons in brackets afterwards, just for consistency!!! They are not consistent, full stop. However, I'm all in favour of adding the metric equivalent in brackets afterwards. Some original units are tons and others are tonnes - the US does not understand tonnes anyway (they think they are tons with quaint English spelling). Pyrotec (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The long (ie UK) ton and short (ie US) ton both have 20 hundredweight... the difference is in how big the cwt itself is: the UK (long) cwt is 112 lb, the US (short) hundredweight is 100 lb. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No wonder I am (was) confused! Thanks for all this info - but we need to think about how we consistently! present this within the article & what conversions should be included?— Rod talk 12:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The {{convert}} template is a stinker when you want to convert weights to or from a tons, cwt form. You should be able to do this: {{convert|10|long ton|5|long cwt}} to get 10 long tons 5 long cwt (10.41 t) but what happens is 10 long tons (10.16047 t)*. I shall hunt for a dedicated template. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to do any of that. For consistency across the whole article we need tos first, then tonnes - rather than the opposite which is presently the case. hundredweights don't need to be involved at all. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parrett Navigation in the second paragraph here, I am not sure what the last three sentences are about. I think they are about a new canal, but waht was the survey for? What did the Act of Parliament passed in 1836 authorize? Whatever it is about, the next paragraph is on a different canal (Bridgwater and Taunton Canal) which I also found confusing. Ah ha! I think it must be the Parrett Navigation! This needs to be spelled out
  • I've tried to explain/clarify this - my reading of the sources is that the survey was a requirement before an act & may have been more than just surveying the land but also estimating the effects of water flow & possible traffic/profits - however I'm not sure enough to put this in.— Rod talk 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also add it to the next subsections first sentence The [Parrett Navigation A]ct allowed the proprietors, of which 25 were named, to raise £10,500 in shares and £3,300 by mortgage, ...
  • Done
  • It is unclear in It[The lock] has since been replaced by a sluice gate to control flooding.[82]
  • Done
  • I would clarify here too The Bristol and Exeter Railway opened in late 1853, and the effects on the [Parrett N]avigation were immediate.
  • Done
  • I was BOLD and just rearranged this section somewhat - please revert if it is not an improvement. I added a two sentence introduction to the topic, then made the first subsection "Background". Please tweak / correct this new introduction as needed - I just thought it needed a brief intro and tried to summarize what I thought were the important points. This first subsection was also still confusing, so I made it only on the other canals / schemes and moved the Parrett Navigation Act of Parliament to the following Construction subsection. I think it flows much better now, but am fine with other arrangements as needed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bridges and structures - I would specify upstream instead of beyond in Beyond this is the telescopic bridge built in 1871 to the design of Sir Francis Fox, ...
  • I would also use upstream in The next bridge is the Town Bridge. Actually saying at the beginning of the section that the bridges are discussed or described in upstream order would take care of this.
  • I've added an explanation that they are described from mouth to source (& changed text on Drove Bridge which said it was nearest the source when it should have said mouth)
  • I like this section and I like the schematic of the river beside it, but there are bridges mentioned in the Course section and shown in the schematic that are not mentioned here. What are the criteria for including bridges here?

OK I will stop here for now. Hope this helps. More in the next day or so, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

[edit]
More comments
  • Bridges I compared the two and could not find the following bridges in the schematic mentioned in the Birdges and structures section.
    • Bristol and Exeter Railway
  • Done
    • M5 motorway
  • Done
    • Stanmoor Bridge on River Tone
  • i'm not sure if this one (at Lat (WGS84) N51:04:02 (51.067299) Long (WGS84) W2:55:04 (-2.917824) LR ST357301) should be included as the bridge doesn't actually cross the Parrett, but River Tone a few yards from the confluence.— Rod talk 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently everything upstream of the A378 Bow Street Bridge, i.e.: Bicknells Bridge, River Yeo; Law Lane Bridge, Muchelney; Thorney Bridge; Gawbridge Bow; Carey's Mill Bridge; A303 bridge, South Petherton; and A356 Coleford Bridge
  • I've had a go at these. Law Lane Bridge is Westover Bridge = worth checking I've got all of these. It also found the Parrett iron Works which might be worth its own article.— Rod talk 21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the article but not apprently in the schematic
    • Little Bow Bridge?
    • Cocklemoor Bridge?
  • This is a small pedestrian bridge next to the Great Bow Bridge opened in 2006 - not included in schematic (or shown on many maps yet) I will investigate including it in the schematic— Rod talk 16:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following bridges might be clarified to be more like the schematic description
    • Add that the Burrowbridge bridge carries the A361?
  • Done
    • Clarify which is the A378 Bow Street Bridge - assume this is the Great Bow Bridge?
  • Changed in the schematic to Great Bow Bridge for consistency
General comments
  • I found a picture of the tidal bore here but it has no indication of a free license. It might be something to think about getting an image of, though the article is already nicely illustrated.
  • The small river under the name in the Geobox can be turned off if you want - ask if you don't know how and want to remove it.

More soon, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments
  • Is bargees a typo? I know it is a variant spelling, would barges work instead?
  • I tweaked the map a little so it displayed better in the infobox, and moved the first image left to avoid lots of white space with the longer Geobox.
  • Thanks
  • WP:MOSIMAGES says not to sandwich text between images, but the Monk's Leaze clyce image and the Westonzoyland image form a text sandwich on my monitor at least (and the short Flood prevention section has three images total). At the same time the Lanscape section of History has only one image - would it make sense to move the Westonzoyland image up to History: Landscape? Westonzoyland is mentioned in that section.
  • I will rearrange images later
  • No previous board(s) are mentioned before this It was designed to drain the area around Westonzoyland, Middlezoy and Othery,[123] and the success of the drainage system led to the formation of other drainage boards and the construction of other pumping stations. so "other drainage boards" doesn't make sense
  • Revised
  • Maybe start a new paragraph here? The pump at Westonzoyland originally comprised a beam engine and scoop wheel, which is similar to a water wheel, ...
  • Done
  • Clyce have already been explained so Various measures including sluice gates, known locally as [or] clyce, have been deployed to try and control flooding.
  • Done
  • Awkward - I am not sure what "permanent grass" is It is an agricultural region typically with open fields of permanent grass, surrounded by ditches [lined?] with willow trees.
  • Ref 141 says the play Glass Eels is set on and in the Parrett, so this needs to be changed The 2003 BBC Radio 4 play Glass Eels by Nell Leyshon was set on a river in the Levels, probably the Parrett.[141]
  • Done
  • I am not going to check them all, but some of the species names not linked have articles here, see Tilia cordata
  • If the species is linked like Tilia cordata, should "Lime" also be linked?
  • User:SP-KP (who is much more expert on this than I am) has revised many of the species names & links
  • What is "neutral grassland"? Langmead and Weston Level is nationally important for its species-rich neutral grassland and ...
  • My understanding is that this is grassland with a neutral pH but I can't find a suitable article for it
  • "It" is unclear here (assume it is the river) It then passes through the Somerset Levels National Nature Reserve which contains a rich biodiversity of national and international importance.[148] Also we have not heard much about the river passing previously, so "then passes" is a bit odd
  • Done
  • I think the use of Latin names should be consistent - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) may help
  • Can the one sentence paragraph on Screech owls be combined with another paragraph to improve flow?
  • Done

OK, I think I am done. I made some copyedits as I went through the article, please revert if I made mistakes or introduced errors. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more
  • This sentence needs a ref: The Langport and River Parrett Visitor Centre located at Langport details local life, history and wildlife. and this could be that ref
  • Done
  • I know I read in the talk a bit about the name , but it seems odd to have nothing about the name in here.
  • The references to plants and animals have to be consistent. First off, if an animal has no common name, it is fine to just use the Latin binomial name (currently done for example with the beetle Hydrophilus piceus). The article needs to use the same system for animals which have a common name. Currently the following approaches are used:
    • Genus name linked, no common species name, binomial name linked in parentheses, i.e. "eels (Anguilla anguilla)"
    • Common species name given but with a genus link, no link to binomial name, i.e. "Pedunculate Oak (Quercus robur)" but I note that Quercus robur has an article
    • Common species name and binomial name given, but no links, i.e. "Ash (Fraxinus excelsior)" note (Fraxinus excelsior) has an article
    • Common species name linked, binomial name not linked, i.e. "Bird's Nest Orchid (Neottia nidus-avis)"
    • Common species name linked, no binomial name given, i.e. "marsh marigold"
  • There may be other variants, but you get the idea. One of the criteria for FAC is that things need to be as consistent as possible - pick a system and use it throughout. I think for readability I prefer to link the common species name and not give the binomial name unless there is no common name, but whatever you prefer is OK as long as it is consistent.
  • Consistency is also what I was looking for in the bridges schematic vs. the bridge section of the article - if figured if it was important enough to mention in one place, it ought to be mentioned the other and ought to be clear what was what in both places (so specify which highway is on the Great Bow Bridge for one random example).

I think I am done for real, though I am watching this page and would be glad to make more comments or resond here as needed (and support at FAC once everything has been resolved here, though a final peer review might be a good idea to catch any remaining rough spots). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your helpful suggestions & edits.— Rod talk 19:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

[edit]

The {{cite book}} templates are a bit confused. Some are scattered through the text, others are gathered together at the end. Would you like me to get all the inline ones down to the bottom, replacing each former inline occurrence with a {{harvnb}}? I've been commissioned to do that on other articles before, and no complaints... --Redrose64 (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. These have all been added over the years! by several authors. I'm not a fan of harvnb but seeing as they are being used here we need to get them consistent. I have one more section to add (on the origin of the name) & we still need to sort long tons v tons v tonnes etc but then I hope to put it up for PR & then go for FAC again.— Rod talk 21:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It's a bit big to tackle tonight, and I'm hoping to get to London Meetup 30 tomorrow, so it might be Monday. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no deadline on wikipedia & there is still plenty of work to do. I'm out of the country later in the week so I'm not aiming at FAC for another week or two. Any help is always appreciated.— Rod talk 22:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some preliminary fixups - mainly to make the existing short notes link to the full citation. In short: each {{cite book}} requires a |ref=harv, and |date=1998 doesn't always link properly - in the absence of a full date, it's better to use |year=1998 (optionally, a |month= may also be used, if the information is available).
Two things that I can't fix:
  • In Port of Bridgwater, for the passage "and was formerly linked to the Bristol and Exeter Railway by a rail track which crossed the A38. The link was built in 1876 by coal merchants, and was originally operated as a horse-drawn tramway. In 1875, the local landowner built The Dunball Steam Pottery & Brick & Tile Works adjacent to the wharf.", the reference page is given as "11,–33" - should this be "11–33" or "11,33"? checkY
  • the material drawn from Otter 1994 is lacking all page numbers. checkY
I've now begun to convert the inline {{cite book}}, one section at a time so that edit conflicts are less likely. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. For the Priestley Evans ref, this sounds like an academic paper; so would {{cite journal}} be more suitable?
More page numbers are required, for:
  • Crowden 1996 checkY
  • Ekwall 1928 checkY
  • Costen 1992 checkY
--Redrose64 (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the {{cite book}} (except the Priestley Evans one mentioned above) are now converted and fixed up where necessary. Some page numbers are still req, see above.
It might be possible to do most of the {{cite journal}} and some of the {{cite web}} too. You want? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Priestly-Evans one links to a goggle books snippet - it was found by User:Jezhotwells who may be able to help, but I would think cite journal might be best. I don't have the Crowden Ekwall Costen, or the Murless one to sort the page numbering, but unless anyone sle can help with these I will try to get them through the library next week. Any further efforts appreciated.— Rod talk 22:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Priestley Evans cite is to a book, all the details are there in the cite. no isbn as it predates that system. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried about the isbn (or lack of); it's the title - it's just so long, the sort of thing that you get in peer-reviewed academic journals. I can't imagine that any publisher would let that through as a book title. On the other hand, if some of this is a chapter title, perhaps some of it could be moved to the |chapter= parameter? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well that is the title, it is two papers which had been presented in the late twenties, later published as a book in 1931 - possibly privately published - as was the style at the time for many learned Welsh ministers. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Crowden ref is page 133 but I don't think I've formatted it correctly (I find harvnb overly complex). I have requested copies of the Costen & Otter books by interlibrary loan (so may take a couple of weeks). The Ekwall book is not available to borrow so I may have to travel to view one of the reference only copies - not sure when I will be able to do this.— Rod talk 08:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your change was from <ref>{{harvnb|Crowden|1996}}</ref> to <ref name="crowden (1996)-133">{{harvnb|Crowden|1996}}</ref> ie all that you did was to name the ref; and since this ref isn't used anywhere else, it had no effect. As with any ref which doesn't use {{harvnb}}, the part that actually gets displayed is the part between the <ref></ref> tags. What you should have done was to add |p=133 to the {{harvnb}}; I have fixed that.
{{harvnb}} isn't complex compared to (say) {{cite book}}. It takes up to six parameters. The first four are the surnames of the first four authors; or if there are no authors, the surnames of the first four editors. The next is the year of publication. The last one is the only named parameter, and is the location within the source, and may be any of:
  • |p=n for a single page (synonym: |page=)
  • |pp=m,n or |pp=m–n for multiple pages (synonym: |pages=)
  • |loc=para. n or |loc=section m.n for specifying a location in non-paginated media (eg. website)
So, "{{harvnb|Crowden|1996|p=133}}" produces "Crowden 1996, p. 133". You'll notice it has a bluelink: in order for that to then be linkable to the full citation, the {{cite book}} (or {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}} etc.) must be set up correctly; ie using:
  • |last1= etc. for author surnames, and not |author= or |coauthors=
  • |editor1-last= etc. for editor surnames, and not |editor= or |editors=
  • |year= for publication year, and not |date= unless a full date is given
  • |ref=harv must also be specified.
Thanks for fixing it - but you reinforced my belief that harvnb is overly complex. To to cite book I just click a button & up pops a box with fields to be filled in - much simpler in my opinion.— Rod talk 15:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now got hold of copies of the book by Otter (all of the five facts from it are in the pages 94-100) and the Aston book which includes the chapter by Costen (the bit about -tun being added to names in the Saxon period is page 37). I've put these in but could someone check the formatting. I'm still searching for access to the Ekwall book, but we could just remove the detail that Crowdens interpretation (which is fully referenced) is based on Ekwall book (which lacks the page number). What do you think?— Rod talk 14:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting trip today to a reference only library, which I'd not visited before, has enabled me to tweak the Ekwall derivation of the name and provide page numbers. I believe this was the only thing outstanding. Has anyone else got any comments or should we go for FAC - or is another peer review needed first?— Rod talk 17:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

[edit]

Just saw that this earned its star - congratulations to everyone involved! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for your help.— Rod talk 07:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought...

[edit]

"During the Roman era the river was crossed by a ford." Well, yes - in its upper reaches it was probably crossed by several fords, as were most rivers. Do we mean to say "During the Roman era the river was crossed by a paved ford at Ilchester"? And, if that's right, shouldn't Ilchester be marked on the map? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this is about the bit in the lead as further detail is provided in the Landscape sub head of the history section. Do you think more detail is needed on this in the lead?— Rod talk 06:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It just struck me that the sentence in the lead was fairly inconsequential - all rivers would have had fords, of some sort and scale, somewhere, especially towards their source. Stupidly, I thought that Ilchester was on the Parrett, which I now realise is not the case - so, where was the ford, and why is it significant? The Landscape section doesn't seem to tell me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some speculation about a ford at Combwich, but I'm not aware of any documentary evidence. As the article says "It is thought a ford, usable only at low tide, crossed the river near its mouth, between Combwich and Pawlett (east bank). This crossing, at the western end of the Polden Hills, was known since Roman times and lay on the route of a Saxon herepath." There would of course have been other crossings nearer the source where it is narrower and shallower.— Rod talk 07:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I somehow missed that sentence, so apologies again. In that case, could it not say "During the Roman era, the river was crossed by a ford near its mouth." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but none of the sources seem that definite, and phrases such as "may have been", "It is thought that" etc are not good in the lead.— Rod talk 07:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's up to you of course, but the sentence "During the Roman era the river was crossed by a ford" just struck me as a trivial thing to say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK how about "During the Roman era the river could be crossed at low tide, by a ford near its mouth" which expands the significance but doesn't actually claim it was done regularly?— Rod talk 08:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky, because that could be done at any time, not just in Roman times. Frankly, if it was up to me, I'd be tempted to leave that part of the sentence out of the lead altogether. I've also just noticed: "Many approaches have been tried since the early 19th century to reduce the incidence and effect of floods and to drain the surrounding fields" - although the article refers specifically to improvements by the medieval abbeys, and implicitly at least to earlier improvements by the Romans. Sorry - I realise it would have been more helpful if I'd contributed earlier!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contributions welcome whenever. I'd be OK if you removed the ford in Roman Times &/or reworded the dates in relation to drainage interventions.— Rod talk 10:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked it a little. Should Glastonbury Abbey be mentioned specifically in the lead, to add to reader interest, or would that over-complicate it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can add Ilchester to the map - should I? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only suggested it when I mistakenly thought it was on the Parrett - as it's only on a tributary it's less important. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it is mentioned 8 times in the article, which is why I asked. There is always a tension between labeling everything and keeping the map clear and easy to use. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent dimensions

[edit]

It is claimed to be 27 miles from the sea to "Oath", yet the whole river is claimed to be 37 miles long. These are demonstrably inconsistent.Eregli bob (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this comment. Oath (Aller, Somerset is approx two thirds of the way from the sea to the source therefore the numbers seem correct. A look at any map and several of the sources cited will support the numbers. You say it is "demonstrably inconsistent", do you have any sources or evidence to support this or could you explain a little more about what you think is wrong?— Rod talk 09:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it is 27 miles from the sea to "Oath", and 10 miles from Longport to Chiselborough, then how far is it from Chiselborough to the alleged source near Cheddington ? If the entire river is 37 miles long, then the answer to this should be zero, which a glance at the map and also Google Earth suggests is not the case.122.106.205.74 (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, that only works if the river is straight. It perfect possible to "draw a staight line" ("as the crow would fly") from Oath to the sea that is 27 miles long (assuming the figures are correct) yet the distance by river is 37 miles. Go a look at a map, or google earth: the river bends back on itself. Pyrotec (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Port of Bridgwater

[edit]

There's a lot of references to "tons" as opposed to tonnes in here. It looks like the "tons" being referenced are "short tons" (i.e US tons these days) and the UK hasn't used short tons for anything since 1824. Now it's possible that some of the statements (esp. w.r.t canal carrying capacities) might have been in short tons originally, but it ought to be made clearer. In a UK article, "tons" ought to refer to "long tons" by default. Quite honestly I think that all references to "tons" of any sort should be deleted and the article should use tonnes throughout for clarity. Neither long nor short tons are in current use in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Hosgood (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. That's easily fixed - the {{convert}} template automatically converts tonnes to short tons but displays as "ton". If you explicitly specify "ST" in the conversion then it displays as "short ton", which I have now implemented in the article. Hopefully that clears any confusion. If anyone thinks tonnes to short tonnes is not the best conversion and pounds or troy ounces would be better then let's discuss. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 13:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am bemused by the shipping stats being given as tonnes first followed by a conversion to Olde English short tons which haven't been used in the UK since 1824! This is pedantically kept up even on statements about cargoes shipped from the port in 2006 by which time even imperial long tons had become totally obsolete. I could understand maybe historical references from 1824 onwards up until about 1960's being long tons first (with a conversion to tonnes) but from somewhere between then and now the UK has obsoleted long tons and now works in tonnes only. So a 2006 reference may as well just give tonnes with no conversion, certainly no conversion to pre-1824 short tons! Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The {{convert}} template automatically converts metric tonnes to short tons if no second unit of measure is given, but confusingly it displays it as "ton". After you pointed out that confusion the templates were fixed so that "short ton" is displayed. The short ton is still in use in the USA so it is incorrect to dismiss it as "old english" and is much more common than the long ton, which is why it is useful to provide a conversion. The convert template allows conversions to many different units of measure, so if it were felt appropriate we could easily convert tonnes to pounds. What conversion would you suggest? --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 10:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair point. I was referring to "Olde English" because that's what it is from the POV of a UK reader, but yes short tons are just "tons" from the POV of a US reader, and yes - since long tons haven't been used in the UK since probably the 1960's, the use of short ton will certainly be more common these days. The real question I suppose is: do WP articles have to provide translations to units that are only in use in the USA for an article that's not about the USA? Metric tons (aka tonnes) are I believe also used a fair bit in the USA, but we'd probably have to ask a real citizen of the USA about that! Steve Hosgood (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the convert template can be very useful if it's just for one well-known metric and one well-known imperial. But US units do seem to complicate matters. How I wish Wikipedia articles such as this had a "global units of choice" button at the top, or even separate US/UK/Metric versions that one could choose between. But I guess both of these options are some way off! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a very valid point! Mostly because I was (independently) going to make the same point! But MartinEvans123 has obviously got there first. I notice that a users's "My Preferences" section already allows you to select (amongst other things) your favoured time-and-date presentation. It would be a sensible extension for users to be able to select Metric, U.S. Customary, British Imperial or Default. I guess the "convert" template could then "do the right thing" to suit that user rather better than now. Certainly the complicated and cumbersome three-way conversions would largely disappear. I think I saw a similar suggestion actually in the talk page for the "convert" template. I'd welcome such a thing, but it would probably be tricky to get right. Steve Hosgood (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that might be a very good place to put it, except that it would restrict choice to logged-in users? General public readers would still have to put up with the conversions. I guess "conversion on\/ off" would also be a useful setting, in case readers definitely wanted to see a two- or even a three-way conversion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)
It is wrong to assume that UK articles are only of use to UK readers - that's why conversions are provided. Convert allows us to provide conversions relevant to readers anywhere in the world. It is common in automotive or motorcycle articles, for example to do three way conversion so that 5 litres is shown as 5 litres (1.1 imp gal; 1.3 US gal). Worth noting on the litre conversion that the default when only the first unit of measure is used, i.e. litre, is to convert to both imperial and US gallons. As I have previously indicated with tonnes, the default choice made by convert is not always the most convenient, which is why it pays to give some thought to the choice of units on an article-by-article basis. If the more specific question relating to this article is "does tonne need any conversion?" then my answer is yes it does. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 12:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of converting tonnes, which looks better? --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 12:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • 123 tonnes (136 tons)
  • 123 tonnes (136 short tons)
  • 123 tonnes (121 long tons; 136 short tons)
  • 123 tonnes (271,000 lb)
The first one looks fine to me. But I think part of the problem here may be hhat the large numbrs, typically in the tousands, makes the whole thing look very cumbersome? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the first one, which is what was in the article, is that it automatically converts to short tons not long tons and makes no distinction. That has the potential to confuse readers who are used to "ton" meaning long ton. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 12:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the second seems better. But I stand by earlier daydreaming, anything else looks cumbersome alas. If it was just once or twice in the article it wouldn't matrer. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Bob says: "The problem [with the 'convert' template] is that it automatically converts to short tons not long tons and makes no distinction". Might I suggest then, that someone with the knowledge (i.e. not me!) goes and fixes the 'convert' template? Presumably there will be a lot of other articles out there similarly suffering from "wrong tonnage" effects. Of course, the elimination of this sort of confusion is precisely what the metric system was invented for (in the 17th century) in the first place.... Steve Hosgood (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And four centuries later people still use other systems. Feel free to visit Template talk:Convert and suggest changes. Its authors are generally receptive to suggestions for improvement. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reference values that I mostly quoted in this article were in (UK) tons (Long tons), since they come from sources dating back to the early 1950s, however due to lunacies of getting this article through GA (and later aiming for FA) they were converted to metric tonnes and the convert template was used to dual display them as tonnes and LT. The conversions to ST are likely to have been vandalism, since the units were never short tons in the first place. I deliberately use the term "lunacy", perhaps "extreme intolerance" at FAC is a more accurate description, since the source was tons (LT) it would have been prudent in my oppinion to quote those values in their original units and add a conversion in brackets. However, the problem was that some units of measure were given in the references as metric units and others in Imperial units; FAC is not willing to allow mixed primary units, i.e. everything has to be metric with Imperials in bracket, or the other way about. Pyrotec (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"FAC is not willing to allow mixed primary units" - that is indeed a ridiculous requirement, especially for any article about the UK featuring references into the past. It even contradicts MOS which though it recommends not mixing primary units, allows for the UK's idiosyncracies in weights and measures. The trouble with this article as I see it (and I'm a Brit) is the enforced use of imperial units throughout make it look out-of-date (as I commented in another section above about the rate-of-flow figures for the river in cu.ft per sec or the fall of the river in ft. per mile). I think most Brits have an underlying knowledge that no British scientist would have done any work in imperial units since probably the 1970's at the very latest, and that no government body would have published anything in imperial units since the 1980's. So anything quoted in imperial units would be assumed to date from pre those times, but actually it appears that the river flow figures date from just a few years back and have been converted (vandalised even!) into imperial. All just to achieve FA, so it seems from reading here. It all just conspires to make the article look like it was written for Steampunkopedia! Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of "highland carrier"

[edit]

A clarify tag has been added to "The river is technically a highland carrier" which is followed by "as it is embanked and the water level is often higher than the land through which it flows." My understanding is that this is what highland carrier means - what further clarification is needed?— Rod talk 15:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tag seems have have been placed there by Ehrenkater during a series of constructive edits carried out yesterday. There is no article highland carrier, but the phrase appears (in singular or plural form) in the Market Weighton Canal, Isle of Axholme, Witham First District IDB, River Nar and River Parrett articles. Perhaps a red link would be sufficient; why not ask Ehrenkater? Pyrotec (talk) 22:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable in a brief search to find any independent evidence that "highland carrier" is a recognised geographical term. If evidence can be found that it is a recognised geographical term, then a red link would do; otherwise the reference should be deleted. Will try and check who introduced it.----Ehrenkater (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have now found an independent definition of "highland carrier" http://www.ada.org.uk/glossary.html so will add it.----Ehrenkater (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on River Parrett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on River Parrett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on River Parrett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on River Parrett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on River Parrett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:River_Parrett&oldid=1249607056"