Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:08, 7 September 2008 [1].

Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal[edit]

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it gives the reader an excellent impression of the history, planning, construction, use, demise and restoration of the canal. I have used authoritative sources both in print and online format, and have tried to be as balanced and informative as I possibly can be, without going into too much detail. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I asked these at the PR, and I'll ask again, what makes these sources reliable?
    - I answered at the PR but I understand you may not have watched the page so will answer here
    • http://www.mbbcanal.demon.co.uk/
      - a fairly old site and not updated recently but I've used it mostly to illustrate with images - I have emailed the owner for OTRS permission for the canal map image (I did have an email from him giving permission but not with the OTRS system), but he hasn't replied for over a week. I have a feeling I may have to remove some of the references to this site that do not involve images
      - All references to this website have now been either replaced, or removed. I have put a link to this website in the external links section as it provides interesting images both old and new of the condition of the canal Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.jim-shead.com/waterways/index.php (self-published site)
      - have emailed and requested sources, but most of the information on there is supported by other searches and research I have done in the library
      - further to this, Jim Shead has replied, telling me that most of the information is from "The Canals of North West England" by Hadfield and Biddle. If referencing using the Jim Shead site is unacceptable, I will replace those references with ones directly from the book. Do let me know as I will have to buy the book to do this, unless a local library has a copy. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have now replaced all Jim Shead references with references from the afore-mentioned book. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/index.htm (self-published site)
      - updated regularly with news and information which supports information I get directly from being a member of the MBB canal society, but I have emailed him for his sources
      - The site is run by Mike Clarke, who has written several books including this one on Amazon. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this this search on Amazon shows a wide variety of works published by Mike Clarke, all dealing with the Liverpool canal. I think it's pretty safe to consider him an expert. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guilty of brain-fade here, Martin Clarke runs the site above, not Mike Clarke. I've unscored this line and will replace the relevant references. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, all references replaced. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. My father was a railfan (in the US, though) so I sympathize. Most of the good sources in rails are self-published so they are hard to prove. Perhaps something showing that this magazine is used in other printed works? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all I can suggest is that this source corroborates much of the other research I have done, and has even led me in new directions to search, enabling me to add more history - from other sources. I haven't seen anything hugely wrong with any of the information I've read on there. I think its a fairly trustworthy source. I haven't been able to find anything that refers to it though. I'm quite happy to rely on it as a trustworthy source of information. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and struck this, as it is a published source, and most railfan mags are painstakingly accurate. (I say this as a child of a railfan. Reading a railroad history can at times resemble watching paint dry...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not used as a source, you need to list it in the external links, etc. Also be double sure you're not linking to copyright violations. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed references and put link in external links section. The images on the page linked are taken by the website author on their bike rides, so no copyright violations there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Not sure on this one, honestly. Do we use pictures on personal web site to prove that a group worked on something? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have my own set of pictures as proof - I am a member of the canal society. The pics are here, in my Flickr profile. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To further clarify about sources, to determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. -
  • Current ref 18 (Corbett, John) needs a page number.
    - I don't recall inserting that reference so I will check the article history and contact the person who did
    - Hmm, turns out it was me. Leave it with me.... Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the reply, responses above in italics Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness, I've tried to correct the threading, I hope I got it right, pls review the WP:FAC instructions and WP:TALK regarding threading on talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

image comment - Excellent job on the photos especially the OTRS ones from the 1960s and 1930s Fasach Nua (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Image:MBB canal map.gif - I don't see indication of the asserted author (Alan Taylor) or license (CC-by-SA 3.0) at the source provided. Uploader (Tom Jeffs) is not the same as the author. How can we confirm Taylor is indeed the author and has licensed this as CC-by-SA 3.0? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - One of the users on Wikiproject Greater Manchester will shortly replace this image Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This map has now been replaced with my own creation Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I handled the GA nomination for this article not very long ago, but i think the article is comprehensive and well-presented. Good luck, POD. --Lord₪Sunday 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the lead and infobox only:

  • I don't understand why the infobox says its maximum length is 70 ft and the lead says its 15 miles and 1 furlong long. A metric equivalent should be given for the latter.
    - Maximum length of vessel - directly underneath this is maximum beam. Perhaps I should try and wikilink those entries in the infobox, to explain the terms? I have inserted a convert template to correct the canal length, thanks Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have raised the question of the wikilinking the nautical terms in the infobox, on the infobox discussion page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further to this, the creator of the infobox template has modified some of the terms to make them more understandable. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why there are three closure dates.
    - Closed in phases, as discussed in the article. Too much information to list in the infobox alone. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its entrance was from the River Irwell in Salford" and "the collieries aside it" both sound strange to me. The first makes it sound like a tunnel with one way in, and the second is too formal and archaic.
    - It isn't the way I read it, but I'm quite happy for people to suggest an alternative wording if it is confusing. Most canals are connected to other waterways. To enter the canal, one would sail up the Irwell and lock up into the canal. There are no other ways onto the canal for reasons that are hinted at in the lead. I don't see what is archaic about stating 'colleries aside it' - most collieries in the area were aside the canal, that's why it was built, and they're the primary reason for damage and eventual closure Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Paragraph since edited by User:Richerman Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The summit level between Bolton and Bury was on a single level and required no locks." Repetition of "level".
    - Good spot, I have changed to 'Between Bolton and Bury the canal was on...' Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Six aqueducts were built to allow the canal to cross the rivers Irwell and Croal, as well as two minor roads." Not immediately apparent why 6 aqueducts are required to cross 4 features.
    - Rivers meander in their course. The map shows this. I see your point but I think to explain in the lead why 6 aqueducts were built to cross 4 features is too much - hence, this information is in the body of the article. Would it read better as 'six aqueducts were built...multiple crossings of the rivers... perhaps? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have modified the text around the aqueducts both in the lead and in design sections, as it was a little ambiguous. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1791 by local landowners and businessmen and built between 1791 and 1808, during Golden Age of canal building, and cost..." too many "ands"; missing "the". DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Another good spot, changed to "1808, during the Golden age of canal building, at a cost of £127,000 Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the lead is much clearer to me now.

  • I love most of the images; the photographs are very evocative and the maps are extremely clear and well-done. It's a shame the Manual of Style for images has shrunk one of them to a size where it cannot be seen. However, there's a problem with Image:Lon-Brum-Centenary.jpg. We need to either wait for the deletion discussion to close, or the licensing to change before promotion. Alternatively, you could remove the image and then put it back once or if the discussion over it has come to an acceptable conclusion.
    - It should be possible to use one of the Bury Bar Frame locomotive images, as at least 4 of the locomotives used were of the Bury Type (as per reference in the article (steamindex - search for bolton). I'd prefer to use the present image if possible as its more evocative of the era. I'm hoping someone will create a Manchester and Bolton Railway article at some point, so this can be filled out. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be illuminating to illustrate the three-hour packet ride with a comparison with the modern-day journey time, and possibly modern equivalents for some of the sums of money involved (say the total cost and the share price). There's a template for this: {{inflation}}. "Current status" should be renamed "Status as of 2008".
    - I'll try and find some information on the journey times by rail, when the new railway opened. Stagecoach - I really have no idea about that, I'd be guessing there, perhaps theres a Wikihistory project that might know more. A journey time by modern day standards would be very easy. Oddly enough, by my estimate walking from Bolton to Manchester shouldn't take more than 3-4 hours. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There ought to be a cite at the end of the quote from Alexander Nimmo, and there's a hidden comment asking for a reference for the moving of locks 4 and 5 in Salford. A couple of other hidden comments also need addressing at some point, either now or afterwards, for complete peace of mind. DrKiernan (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nimmo quote referenced, locks 4&5 I think is in a society newsletter so I'll look for that. Some of the hidden comments are for future editors - for instance, "Thomas Lyon" seems to be related to the sugar family in Warrington, but without conclusive evidence I'll not say - so I've left some comments in there just in case anyone stumbles across something that could be used to wikilink in future. I am waiting for the library to respond to an email I sent them for the Corbett reference above, I'll give them a few more days and then go there myself, at which time I'll sort out the Tomlinson hidden message that's still in there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Manchester_Bolton_%26_Bury_Canal/archive1&oldid=1138466339"