Talk:River Weaver

Assessment Report
DDStretch   (talk)  23:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Article needs to be massively expanded. ✅
 * 2) It should make more use of sections. ✅
 * 3) "Route Map" needs to be added. ✅
 * 4) More photos need to be added. ✅
 * 5) References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.) ✅

Rating
Rated as B-class for UK waterways project. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Suitably referenced, with inline citations
 * Reasonable coverage - no obvious omissions or inaccuracies
 * Defined structure, with adequate lead
 * Reasonably well written for grammer and flow
 * Supporting materials - Infobox, map, images, POI table
 * Appropriately understandable

Frodsham development
I have removed the following, because the web reference does not link to anything that mentions Frodsham, and I cannot find any info on the RWNS site or the web to support it. Nor does it appear on the wayback archive. Please feel free to add the information back in if you can find a suitable reference.
 * However, the River Weaver Navigation Society are pressing for Frodsham cut and lock to be reopened, and to redevelop the Frodsham wharves on the Weaver. Frodsham is an attractive small town, but has no particular focus of interest to visitors. The proposers of the new "waterfront" believe that it will be a popular attraction to boaters and gongoozlers alike.

Bob1960evens (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to GA
I have extended to route diagram to include the aqueducts of the Middlewich Branch, the Shropshire Union main line and the Llangollen canal. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice work. Thanks Bob. Pyrotec (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have also added a little more to the lead. Have you any suggestions as to how much bigger it should be, in view of the GA assessment comments? Bob1960evens (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The WP:Lead should both introduce the article (which it does well) and summarise the main points. It does provide some summary and I've awarded it GA, but perhaps a bit more summary would be good, especially if WP:FAC is being aimed for. Its got Salt, T&M canal, Weston canal and Anderton Boat Lift by name. Possibly, expand the (unnamed) listed structures and tourism and (say) add the equivalent of another paragraph or double the final paragraph (~ 33% increase). There are no hard and fast rules, and its personal opinion anyway. Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on River Weaver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110314183419/http://www.weaversailing.co.uk/ to http://www.weaversailing.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancy in length between infobox & text
The text states "more than 50 miles (80 km) long"; the infobox 96 km (60 mi). Neither appears directly sourced. (I tried to request a source for the infobox figure but it just breaks the infobox coding.) Espresso Addict (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to 71 miles, based on adding up the lengths of the sections quoted in the Environment Agency quality data. The 50 miles was sourced from Nicholson. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I'd forgotten all about this. I've updated the portal to match. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been having problems with sourcing references for river lengths in Wales where original research on my part confirms my suspicions that the lengths quoted in Wikipedia are incorrect. Of course being 'OR' means it is ineligible for inclusion but it should serve as a warning (and a spur) to editors that more work remains to be done to obtain properly sourced, accurate figures. I'm typing this here having provided introductory text for the bulleted list of tributaries provided by another editor, itself perhaps lifted from the List of rivers of England article. cheers Geopersona (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've measured the entire length of the river (using online 1:25,000 scale OS mapping with the digital tool at wheresthepath) from its source on the eastern side of the Peckforton Hills all the way down to its entry into the Manchester Ship Canal which surely we must treat as its present day terminus, rather than take it some way along that canal as is presently done to Weston Docks. Now having elected to measure its course via the longer of each of the various of the options available around Northwich and down to Frodsham, I arrived at a figure of 100.5km / 62.5 miles. If all of the shorter options are taken - Barnton Cut etc - then 1.7km / 1.1 miles can be taken off those figures to give 98.8km / 61.4 miles - there's some subjectivity but a figure somewhere within that range might be regarded as most satisfactory. I have in this way avoided duplicating lengths where channels run in parallel. Now whilst I'm confident of the accuracy of my figure to within 1%, it is of course original research on my part so cannot be included in the article but it does at least give an idea of what a true figure should look like. Now, Bob1960evens, I think the discrepancy between these figures and the current ones may perhaps indicate issues with adding up the figures given in the EA quality data though can't access them so unable to check. cheers