Talk:Chester Canal/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 21:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * I'm working my way through the article but its going to take another day, perhaps more, to complete this stage. The article is well referenced, well its mostly based on Canals of the West Midlands, so I would anticipate that the article makes GA this time round. Its certainly not a "quick fail" candidate.


 * As per usual, at this first stage of the review I'll only be reporting any "problems that need fixing". Pyrotec (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * History -
 * First untitled subsection -
 * In general, this subsection is OK. However:
 * The second paragraph states that the canal was conceived as a broad canal, and it was intended to run from the Trent and Mersey canal and (presumably) the Dee, so was the Trent and Mersey canal a broad canal? I don't think this article has a statement on this.
 * ✅ The Trent and Mersey is actually narrow for the first three locks to the north of where the junction was eventually built, but was originally suitable for 14-ft barges after about half a mile. I have not yet found out if the junction as built was in the same location as planned 61 years earlier.
 * Its not too clear about "the solution adopted" at the Dee, in the third paragraph, presumably the basin and pair of single gates used "broad" not "narrow" gates?
 * ✅ Width of entrance added.
 * Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The impact of the Ellesmere Canal -
 * This subsection looks compliant (Note: I added a wiklink to the Ellesmere Canal as it was not linked).


 * A new route to the south -
 * This subsection looks compliant.


 * Part of the Shropshire Union -
 * This subsection looks compliant.


 * Leisure era -
 * This section looks compliant.

... stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Traffic & Route -
 * These two sections look to be compliant.


 * WP:Lead -
 * This section looks compliant.

Pyrotec (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria An informative, comprehensive and well referenced article.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to be able to award this article GA-status. It appears to have the potential to progress through WP:FAC, but I would suggest that advantage of a WP:PR be taken before any decision to proceed with FAC is made. Pyrotec (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)