Talk:Middle Level Navigations/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 16:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments are appended, they will be in a sequence starting at the History section and finishing with the Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• History -
  • Untitled subsection -

• This subsection looks compliant with WP:WIAGA.

• • Establishment -

• In the first paragraph, it would be interesting to know the sourcing of the naming of "the Forty Foot, Twenty Foot and Sixteen Foot Rivers". Are they widths of some kind (top width, bottom width) or Ordnance Datum (OD)?

• I cannot find any details of why they are so called. Most had alternative names (the forty-foot was Vermuyden's drain, the twenty-foot was Moore's drain and the sixteen foot was Thurlow's drain), but again there is no indication when the present names were applied. It cannot be OD, since they all connect together with no locks between. Likewise, the New Bedford River is known as the hundred-foot, but again no explanation. I'll keep looking. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have just noticed that all the bridges on the sixteen-foot were widened as part of the 1977-83 improvements, so it might have been related to width. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this subsection looks compliant with WP:WIAGA.

• • Development -

• I fixed a couple of typos and added some wikilinks as I went throught this subsection.
• Otherwise, this subsection looks compliant with WP:WIAGA.

...Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Restoration -

• This subsection looks compliant.

• • Pumping Stations -

• As this subsection goes back to the 1920s and works its way up to 1948 / 1949 ("... when Local interest in restoring the Middle Levels for navigation began to develop in 1949") and beyond (up to April 2011), I think it is located in the article somewhat out of sequence. I'd suggest that it comes before the Restoration subsection, both chronologically and logically.

• I have swapped the Restoration and Pumping Stations sections. Which ever order they are in, it is not easy to group the information chronologically, and it seems sensible to keep land drainage and navigation separate.

• Thanks, I'm happy with this change. Pyrotec (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• This subsection has three well referenced paragraphs about the technical improvements to the pumping equipment, but I found me asking myself why is this work being carried out when there is no navigation? Then, I spotted the final sentence: "There are more than one hundred smaller pumping stations scattered throughout the system to maintain the water levels and prevent flooding.[1]", which is probably the most important. I'd left looking-at / reading the lead until last, but so far this whole section of the article has been mostly navigation (or lack of). I think this final sentence aught to at the front of this subsection, and should be expanded to a paragraph of its own. That, really, is the justification for maintaining the Middle Level Navigations, having boats is "nice", but its not essential (sorry for the bluntness).

• I cannot see how to move the final sentence to the beginning without upsetting the chronology, but I have added an introduction to highlight the change from gravity drainage to pumped drainage, and altered some of the text to emphasise the drainage functions a little more clearly (I hope). Let me know what you think.

• OK. Let's leave that final sentence where it is; and perhaps just a minor tweak to the first paragraph might work. How about something like: "By the late 1920s, gravity drainage was no longer adequate to prevent / minimise (a suitable word / phrase needed here) flooding of the Middle Levels, and , as land levels continued to fall , and a new sluice and pumping station were constructed at St Germans, opening in 1934.[1] ......"? It's a fairly trival change, but it would probably satisfy my needs. Otherwise, if you have another way you aren't constrained to do it this particular way. Pyrotec (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have had several goes at re-arranging the first sentence, to find a suitable word or phrase. I have ended up with The effect of drainage on the light peaty soils was that further shrinkage occurred, and land levels continued to fall. By the late 1920s, gravity discharge alone could no longer be relied upon to provide an adequate level of flood protection, and a change to pumped drainage began. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that's fine. P.S. Sorry, my sentence above did not make sense, I'd intended to replace "adequate" with "sufficient", but it was missing. Pyrotec (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

...Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Today -

• This sections looks OK.

• Lead -

• Quite a good lead that provides, as required by WP:WIAGA, both an introduction to this topic and a summary of the main points in the body of the article. Pyrotec (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)