Talk:Bow Back Rivers/Comments prior to GAN

Comments prior to Good Article Nomination:
 * Lead ✅
 * It's always worth explaining the two spellings of the river's name, Lee and Lea, and the context in which these are used. This could be done in a note and would avoid the probable question about which is correct.
 * The lead gets very quickly from the 9th century to 1930; The history could do with being drawn out a bit further, to explain the reason for the back rivers first.
 * The first half of the second paragraph seems unrelated to the first paragraph, jumping in with a series of river names that have not been mentioned before. It might be worth giving the names of the various parts of the Bow Back Rivers at the start, e.g:
 * "The Bow Back Rivers or Stratford Back Rivers is a complex of mostly man-made waterways connected to the River Lea between Bow and Stratford in east London. Starting in the 12th century, works were carried out to drain Stratford Marshes and the waterways&mdash;Bow Creek, Prescott Channel, Channelsea River, Abbey Creek, Three Mills River, City Mill River and Waterworks River&mdash; were constructed to power many tidal watermills.
 * Construction of the New River in the 17th century to supply water to London, caused water levels in many of the waterways to drop and many of watermills closed. To make the waters navigable, the Lea and the back rivers began to be canalised. By the 1960s, commercial usage of the waterways had largely ceased. Deteriorating infrastructure led to the rivers dwindling to little more than tidal creeks and they were categorised in 1968 as having no economic or long term future."
 * I have moved the list to the end of the paragraph, or it reads like Prescott Channel once powered a mill. I have also expanded the list.


 * History
 * The chronologically of the first part of this section jumps around a bit
 * Only bridges seem to be out of order, and I think it would be a lot less readable to try to make it chronological, when development of different aspects is currently grouped together.
 * Link Bethnal Green ✅
 * Suggest move most of the bit about water extraction to the public water supply section ✅


 * Name
 * You say when other terms were used, and mention "Bow Back River" but not when "Bow Back Rivers" came into the fore. It really should be possible to confirm the name of the article with a citation ✅
 * "One of the first books to attempt to provide a guide for leisure use..." say which book. ✅


 * Public water supply
 * Much of this section appears to be original research. It would probably be better to include a marked-up copy of the OS map - they are out of copyright 50 years after publication - rather than describe what it shows.
 * Not convinced it is OR. WP:OR says: The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. The maps are published sources, and the article does not advance a position which is not supported by them. (See also Using maps and similar sources in wikipedia articles).
 * Nor am I convinced an OS map will work. To get the scale to see the details, you need huge maps, and while I buy the books I need to write the articles, I don't think I want to buy maps, when it would need so many to adequately show the development.
 * It doesn't need a map for every era, but at the moment, I don't think the article gives any sense of the scale of the area. There are a number of places you can get maps for nothing:
 * OS Map 1884 1:10,560 scale
 * OS Map 1875 1:2,500 scale
 * Stanfords Map of London 1862 6 inches to the mile
 * These may need some compositing in a graphics program to pull them together. --DavidCane (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you would like to have a go, please feel free. The 1:2500 maps nearly show the detail, but would need 5 sheets, and would probably need colouring in. The 1:10560 sheet just about covers the area, but would definitely need colouring in to make the back rivers visible. Both suffer from the fact that Prescott Channel and the 1930s rework is missing. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By whom was the water extracted and from where? Was this a concerted scheme or on an ad-hoc basis? When was it first used for this purpose? Should this be "the public water supply" rather than "a public water supply"?
 * By New River company, West Ham Waterworks and East London Waterworks. The sentence is an introduction. I think it should still be "a public water supply", since it was somewhat limited in its coverage.
 * Should put the bit about the New River here. ✅
 * Did the Waterworks River have a name before it was called this?
 * Probably, but no source found.
 * Further to the west of what? of Saynes Mill?
 * Of Saynes Mill, West Ham Waterworks and Waterworks River. Sentence reworked to address next point as well.
 * Where was the East London Waterworks Company's original supply and where was it moved to?
 * Original supply at Old Ford. Now mentioned. Location of new supply not mentioned in sources.
 * "Much of the work was carried out by William Hoof.." Aside from the Hackney Cut what else did William Hoof's work include? Was there anyone else involved?
 * Hoof was a contractor (now mentioned). Sources make no mention of what else besides the water supply canal.
 * "Where there had been a reservoir to the south of the Middlesex Filter Beds weir in 1850, maps from 1870 show the site occupied by a waterworks, and the canal beside the Hackney Cut." This reads a bit oddly; suggest: "Maps show that by 1870, a waterworks had been built next to the Hackney Cut and the Middlesex Filter Beds" (say where is this) which canal was beside the cut.
 * Some reworking of text to clarify locations.


 * Navigation
 * The text in this section could do with a bit of a tightening
 * Previously it was said that the canal was not navigable after the New River and water extraction lowered the river levels. When did it become navigable through the use of flash locks?
 * Not convinced previous mention of un-navigability was supported by sources, so now removed. Details of 1571 Act added.
 * This is the first mention of the creation of the Hackney Cut, although the Cut is referred to in earlier sections.
 * Now mentioned in lead, which I think covers it.
 * Are Bow Gates and Bow tidal gates the same? ✅
 * Yes. Usage made consistent.
 * Yes. Usage made consistent.


 * Decline
 * Most of this section is about efforts to improvement the canal rather than decline. ✅
 * Section renamed to Regeneration
 * explain mitre gates and radial gates ✅
 * Northern Outfall Sewer is linked twice - this paragraph does not really belong here. ✅
 * Paragraph moved to end of history section.


 * General comments
 * The diagram is useful, but I think a map would be more beneficial. Even better would be a series of maps showing the progressive development of the various channels, rivers, cuts and locks. I used to live nearby and know the area, but I found bits of the article difficult to follow.
 * Again, I'm not convinced. It would need at least 3 (pre-1767, pre-1930 and post-1930), and you can either see the detail or the wider picture, but not both. (and pre-1767 would be difficult to find, I think.) This is why all UK waterways articles have route diagrams. They work like the tube map. They expand to show detail where necessary, and trim out distance to prevent the detail being hidden by scale.
 * I have also added a Points of Interest table, so the features can be seen on Google maps. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

--DavidCane (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)