Talk:Montgomery Canal

Peer review results
Automated suggestions for peer review (from WP:PRA/O07) are pasted below: Hmallett 10:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article .[?]
 * The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 800 metre, use 800 metre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 800&amp;nbsp;metre.[?]
 * As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Guide to layout .[?]
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
 * This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with . At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add .[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]


 * Due to lack of in-line citations, reassessed as C-Class.Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Waterway under restoration template
I removed the waterway under restoration template (even though it is valid) as it messed up the page layout when the infobox was introduced. Hmallett (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Gronwen Wharf to Redwith Bridge section
This was re-watered in October 2007 but is not yet open to navigation for the following reasons.


 * No turning point at Redwith Bridge and 800m is too far for boats to reverse.


 * Bankside vegetation is not fully established.

Some additional planting was done by a group I was with from the Waterway Recovery Group in Augst 2008.

62.49.28.1 (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Route map is confusing
I don't find the Route map easy to read in respect of which sections of the Montgomery canal are navigable and which aren't...

Dark blue means navigable, light blue means watered but not navigable and green means dewatered/infilled?

What does "Limit of restored canal (northern section)" mean given that it's also noted "Gronwyn Wharf Winding Hole - limit of navigation"? This section between these two points is restored but not navigable? If so, why not?

Why is the section between "Carreghofa Lane (barrier to navigation)" and "Northern Limit of Navigation (Welshpool Section)" shown in dark blue when it's presumably not navigable? Shouldn't it be displayed in light blue or green?

Why is the section between "Southern Limit of Navigation (Welshpool Section)" and "Freestone Lock" shown in dark blue when it's presumably not navigable? Shouldn't it be displayed in light blue or green?

Zin92 (talk) 05:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Changes made to address the above.Zin92 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Number of locks in Info Box
I have corrected this from 24 to 27. This now matches the route maps, the original number of locks plus Graham Palmer lock (added during restoration) and Bradshaw 1904 (allowing for Graham Palmer lock). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zin92 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Prospective reconnection of Canal at Ellesmere
Today I came across a front page local newspaper story that as part of the 2021 Budget the Chancellor announced the Powys County Council had succeeded in its bid to secure funding (amount stated £16M) to further restore the canal and reconnect it to the national canal network at Ellesmere. I have mentioned it in the subsection Below Frankton of section Restoration, although it might be moved elsewhere others consider more appropriate. It would be interesting if knowledgeable users (I do not live in Powys Council area but Shropshire itself) could add if they find it more background to the envisaged reconnection.Cloptonson (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)