Talk:Stainforth and Keadby Canal/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 02:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I can do this GA review. Please indicate here if you are still interested. --Noleander (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I am still keen for the article to be reviewed. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Begin Noleander comments

• Overall, it looks great. Gorgeous photos!
• Who? - " The company were pioneers in .." - what company?

•  Done Now reads Dunston's company.

• Wording: "so that stators from Keadby Power Station could be taken away for repairs, ..." - Maybe "so that stators from the nearby KPS could be transported for repairs .."?

•  Done

• Link: "The River Don, which flows th .." - link to river article, if it exists

•  Done Now linked to River Don, South Yorkshire.

• Clarify: "Development: In 1828, there was a proposal to build a canal from West Stockwith on the River Trent to the River Don at Doncaster, ..." - I'm a bit confused: the canal was opened in the prior section in 1802 ... what is this new canal? How does it relate to the 1802 canal?

• Not sure how to resolve this. The end of the sentence already says that it would have bypassed the Stainforth and Keadby.

• Clarify: "Traffic held up surprising well, with the waterways carrying a .." - why is that surprising?

•  Done It was surprising because most railway takeovers resulted in serious decline. Reworked to explain the situation without using "surprising".

• Clarify: "Negotiations with the railway company were long and bitter, and the Navigation company only managed to raise £625,000 of the £1.14 million purchase price, with the result that although they owned the waterways, the railway company still nominated five of the ten directors .." - ?? so the new canal company was or was not able to buy the canals from the RR company? What did they get for the 625K?

•  Done They got ownership, but not freedom from railway control. Wording expanded a little to clarify.

• Link: "Aire and Calder. ..." - who is that?

•  Done Now linked on previous occurence above.

• Which? - "After the Second World War, the canals were ..." - all canals in UK? or just the canals in the article?

•  Done Both. Text expanded to explain the situation.

• Chronological order: "nationalised on 1 January 1948. The winter was particularly severe, and the Stainforth and Keadby was closed for a period in late 1947 du.." - 1948 event should not be before 1947.

•  Done

• History section wrap-up: at end of "Development" subsection: should have a brief summary of the current 21st century situation: canal is still in use and blah blah ...

•  Done Added a new paragraph covering ownership and usage from 1948 to 2012.

• Wording: "(although the spelling is not quite the same)." - Could be clearer; maybe "although the spelling of some of the road names is not consistent with conventional shipyard terminology" or similar. Also, no need for parenthesis.

•  Done It is the spelling of Dunston that has changed. Clarified.

• External links? - If there are any useful External links readers may benefit from, consider putting them at bottom of article.

• I cannot think of any. Unlike many canals, there is no canal society.

• Link? - "grade II" - not sure what that is, so link to some article that defines that term.

•  Done although grade II listed links to the same article as grade II* listed.

• Link? - "include the church of St Mary" - link to church article

•  Not done There is no separate article on the church, and Kirk Bramwith is already linked in the previous sentence.

• Route overview: - Perhaps start Route section with a brief pagraph giving an overview of the route: N-S? E-W? total Length? Total elevation drop? Straight? curvy?

•  Done Brief introduction added, although drops at locks do not appear to be published.

• That's all I can find. If you can address the couple of remaining issues (except the ones you mark "not done", I believe you'll have achieved GA status. --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think that is everything, apart from the 1828 bypass canal comment. I'm not sure what is not clear. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine ... I've re-read it and it looks okay. --Noleander (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)