Talk:Grantham Canal/GA1

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

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am 12george1 and I will be reviewing this article, Grantham Canal. My only query with passing this article is the lack of sourcing in some areas. Below I have quoted the portions of the article which need citations. You can view these quotations directly on the page by pressing Ctrl F.
 * "and later the London and North Eastern Railway."
 * ✅ - 1 ref.


 * "though there had been no boat traffic for ten years. The closure act stipulated that water levels should be maintained at 2 feet (60 cm) to support agricultural needs. This effectively guaranteed the continued existence of the canal channel, but structures such as locks and bridges deteriorated, and in the 1950s 46 of the 69 bridges over the canal were lowered as part of road improvement schemes. Although the low bridges act as barriers to navigation, large parts of the canal are still in water."
 * ✅ - 3 refs.


 * "Following the restoration of the top three locks at Woolsthorpe in the 1990s, a 10-mile (16-km) section from the A1 to Redmile will be completed once the four locks at Stenwith are restored. The Polser Brook Aqueduct was restored in 2003, and five locks have so far been restored. Approximately one quarter of the canal is now to navigable standard, and much improvement of the towpath has taken place."
 * ✅ I have reworked this paragraph based on what I can find sources for, and have removed details of Polser Brook Aqueduct, since I cannot find any reliable sources for its restoration.


 * "There are plans for a tunnel under the A1 as part of a cycle route to improve access to Grantham, and the basin could be redeveloped in due course."
 * ✅ - 1 ref.


 * "There is also a 5-mile (8-km) dry section between Cotgrave and Kinoulton, which has presented problems since construction in the 18th century: gypsum in the soil reacted with the waterproof clay leading to leaking. Following closure, this section then became colonised by an invasive shrub."
 * ✅ - ref found for first part. No details of invasive shrub found, so sentence removed.

I will give you a week to fix this. If you can finish this in less than 7 days, leave a message on my talk page. I will be glad to upgrade this article to Good Article should my queries be fixed. Regards, --12george1 (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that I have addressed all of the issues raised. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I have no other outstanding issues and everything I mentioned has been fixed, I will pass this article. Good jog and congratulations,--12george1 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)