Talk:River Welland/GA1

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 14:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Passed.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements, though if there is a lot of work needed I may suggest getting a copy-editor. Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Tick box
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 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:

Pass

 * Stable.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Has an appropriate reference section. The short citation system is used, which is permitted, though is not the most popular system used on Wikipedia because it is not reader friendly. As part of ongoing development consideration could be given to using the full cite system because the short cite system adds an unnecessary process for readers checking on sources because information is kept in two separate places: page number in one place, book name in another. With the long cite system, all relevant information is kept on the one cite, and a separate bibliography can be appended for those wishing to check which major book sources were used. This is not a GA matter - but is brought up here for consideration only. It will not effect the review.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I love the short citation method, since it keeps the references section to a managable size. The moment you use a source more than once, the long citation method makes the refs appear cluttered, and it makes the text very difficult to edit. Besides, it is only one click on the short citation to highlight the relevant book. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine - I tend to raise the issue when doing a review on an article using short cites. It's worth thinking about, as the long cite method is better for readers. But it's up to you what you do, and the short cite method is allowed on Wikipedia. Indeed, a significant group of FA editors prefer it, as - like you - they feel it looks better.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Images are appropriate and relevant. There are a number of them, and the arrangement needs attention - will bring that again under layout.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Minor query about the statement that the river was one of the earliest to be granted an act, other than that the material has been assembled and presented in a neutral manner.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Boyes and Russell, the source used, says: "Stamford was the head of navigation on the Welland, which is the subject of one of the earlier Acts concerning navigation: 13 Elizabeth I cap 1..." Bob1960evens (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We do remain with sources, rather than use our own research, so if sources do say something we use that. Though the source does say "earlier" rather than "earliest" (early→earlier→earliest), and we do have the option of leaving out a statement if it appears contentious, and is not supported (or is contradicted) by other sources. If a contentious statement is notable, we tend to say: "source x says this, while source y says that". Up to you which way to go - I think using "earlier" would be closer to source, and less contentious.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Changed to "earlier rivers".
 * Just clarifying that when I said "rather than use our own research" I was referring to my own research there. Reading back I can see that it might be ambiguous.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Prose is clear and readable, accurately conveying information. At times the amount of information being presented is a little dense, and some thought may be given - as part of ongoing development - as to how the information could be presented to the reader in a more digestible form. For example, Course may be broken into sub-sections - perhaps picking three sections of the river (ie: source to Stamford, Stamford to Spalding, Spalding to the Wash). This would focus attention on where the reader is, and reduce the appearance of a wall of text, which can sometimes be daunting to the general reader.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added two subsection headings to split this section up a bit. There didn't seem to be enough material for a Spalding to the Wash section, so I have used Stamford to the Wash. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that looks more inviting.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sources. Query about the sourcing of the "earliest" claim, but other than that, statements have end paragraphs citations - and while the sources used are off-line, the facts do check out on research.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is supported by the source used. It is always difficult to know what to write if there are sources which disagree, but I had not found contradictory sources when I wrote this section. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * OR. No evidence of significant wandering away from sources.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  22:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Broad coverage. Article is detailed and conveys the essential points of what appears to be an important river. This is a much larger and more complex topic than initially appears - because of the importance of the river, and its rich history - and contributors have done well in selecting and presenting the information. There remain editorial decisions about the amount of information to include on any one aspect of the river, and there is room for expansion in some areas, but that is now down to future development, as the article does meet GA criteria for coverage.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * MoS. Layout. Now OK.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * MoS. Lead. Improved. I think this is an area that can continue to be worked on for future development, though is acceptable for GA listing. Leads can be tricky to get right, and are often overlooked.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Query
*Coverage. I don't think major aspects have been left out, though I have a few queries about coverage indicated in General comments below.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Focus. At times the detail appears a little excessive and unnecessary for a general encyclopaedia. Too much detail can swamp readers, and turn them away, and so end up being counter-productive. This probably goes too far: If readers require such fine details, they could go to the sources. I'm inclined to think this may be a fail, given that we also have:, and , and , and  - all we require to know is when the mill was originally built.   SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  20:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I will leave the full-time contributors to think about the shipping statistics - I agree they could be simpler to read - but I'm not sure about the problem with Duddington mill. (which incidentally  looks like this,and this, and once like this using architectural techniques common in the area from the 15th C to the 19th and essentially undateable.)  I think we would all like to know when it was originally built!  By comparison with other mills on lowland rivers that could be any time between the 9th and 13th centuries, though there is unwikiable evidence that Kings Mill, Stamford may be the successor to a Roman mill.  There was a mill at duddington in domesday.  The datestones are mentioned in some detail in the Royal Commission report quoted in the listing, so are obviously notable.  I will simplify here, and add them in full to Duddington --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 05:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Normally the criticism is the lack of details of use! I was quite pleased to find details of traffic volumes for this river, but will have a look at improving the text. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have had a go at expanding the text around "In 1802..." and "Vessels of 110...", and removing some of the details, but do not want to remove too much, as "to go to the sources" is not that easy, when the source is a printed book which was last printed in 1977. For the rock and habitat sentences, I am struggling to know how to rework them without destroying the content. 350 tons of rock gives me some idea of the scale of the project, and likewise the areas covered by the nature reserve seem quite important to give a context to the feature. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As, per WP:NOT, statistics by themselves do not always adequately convey to the general reader the information behind the figures - could this sentence be summarised in prose? Does this mean the river had an exceptional amount of trade traffic, an average amount of trade traffic, or a moderate amount for its size?  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  11:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that Boyes & Russell got their trade statistics from Lincolnshire in 1836 by Mary Saunders. I don't think that text adds anything that Boyes & Russell have not covered, but it does provide an immediately accessible verification for the figures if anyone wants to check them, so I'll put an inline cite next to the figures.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  12:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of exceptional / average / moderate volumes of traffic, I think the answer is that we don't know. We have a ten-year window, when we know trade was increasing, but no published sources on what happened before, although we do know that bigger ships could reach the port subsequently. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The question of the stats is a minor quibble. The article is not swamped in stats, and is otherwise fine, so I wouldn't want to hold up a listing for one sentence - I think it's something that can be addressed in ongoing development. As part of that ongoing development I would wonder, if these stats are not telling us much about the trade, and we don't know if they signify that traffic on the river at that time was above or below average, what value they are bringing to the reader. I'm seeing that the main points are that trade was increasing, that there was a desire for larger boats to carry the trade, and that the river was silting up, making passage by larger boats difficult. Perhaps a wording such as:




 * Does that work for you?  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  17:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've got the silting in the 1820s after the trade increase from 1829, so that wouldn't work. Hang on.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  18:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)




 * Is that better?  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  18:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've pasted it into the article, and moved Saunders 1836 into the middle of it. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Fail

 * MoS. Lists. There is a bare, unexplained list of "Tributaries of the River Welland" (and Points of interest). Might this section be developed in prose as "Welland Valley" or "Catchment" or some such? And the Points of interest section merged into the Course section.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  17:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The list of tributaries is a suggested standard feature of River articles. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rivers and also Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_rivers--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fixed up the list - it was out of order anyway. If you want to browse the maps you can use get-a-map or, in the worst case, Geograph--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The points of interest table is included in most canal/river articles, as it allows the reader to overlay the points on google maps (or several other mapping websites), to see where the feature fits in the landscape. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at those WikiProject guidelines you've pointed out. Thanks. As a prime contributor to the MoS WP:EMBED I take an interest in how WikiProjects advise editors to use embedded lists - sometimes projects are not fully aware of the wider guidelines. The GA criteria would follow WP:EMBED rather than a WikiProject if there is a conflict as per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  08:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've put the points and the tributaries list into the Course section, as this is the appropriate place - though I'm still of the view that as they stand they don't meet WP:Embed. Meanwhile, looking closely at the River Welland map it doesn't tie up with the tributaries list - they each have a different selection of tributaries, so neither is complete. I feel this question over these lists is the last stumbling block. The use of statistics, as queried under Focus, is still a concern, but is not a significant issue, so I feel without these contentious lists, the article would acceptably meet GA criteria, and I would proceed to list. Looking at the WikiProject guidelines for coordinates - WP:LINEAR, the recommendation is that coordinates for rivers should be the mouth and the source - other points are optional. As the coordinates list appears to be both redundant (as the appropriate information is already contained in the prose of Course and/or in the route map) and against WP:Embed, and such a list is only recommended as an option by the coordinates WikiProject, I would feel more comfortable if it were removed. I have started discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rivers and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography regarding the guidelines advising to use lists.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  20:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If we have to start removing POI tables, I would rather we fail the article and leave it at B-class, since otherwise it becomes inconsistent with other UK Waterways articles. At the moment, 22 of the 23 GAs that cover linear features have a POI table and 2 of the 4 FAs also do. The mouth and the source give no clues at all to the geography of most rivers and many canals. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is support for this view I will close as not-listed, and you can renominate. I welcome and encourage discussion about interpretation of criteria, and am also sensitive to when contributors feel uncomfortable about how a GAN is being handled, and I can go either way (talk further or close).  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  07:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While not a great lover of lists of tributaries myself, I have had a look at WP:EMBED and wonder in what sense the list is not covered by Long sequences? Bob1960evens (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have had a look at the list of tributaries. The top of it is covered in the Course description and the route diagram. Parts of the bottom of it are covered in the Course section. That leaves Gretton Brook, Uppingham Brook, Stoke Albany Brook and Stonton Brook. I wrote the course section by poring over Ordnance Survey maps, so these four may be sufficiently small that they are not labelled, but I will check the maps again, and if I can find where they are, will add them to the course description. Then the list of tributaries could be removed. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the missing tributaries were named on the OS map, but I tracked them down from the Welland Valley Partnership River Improvement Plan, so have added them all to the Course description, and removed the list. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the missing tributaries were named on the OS map, but I tracked them down from the Welland Valley Partnership River Improvement Plan, so have added them all to the Course description, and removed the list. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

*MoS. Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. At the moment the lead doesn't adequately summarise the article.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  17:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've tackled that a bit.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 05:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it still needs a bit more attention. I had been meaning to do it for some time, (and the inadequate lead was the reason I did not nominate it to GA myself). Bob1960evens (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have added a further paragraph to summarise the history of navigation. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

*MoS. Layout. There are images and a diagram which are not placed logically or tidily in the article - and also which vary in size, and whose position - left or right - doesn't follow guidance. Section order is an editorial decision, and there is guidance on that matter, which the article does follow, though it might make sense for Etymology to be close to, if not a sub-section of History. Also, Points of interest, Navigation and Course, appear to be related, so consideration could be given to grouping them together - perhaps as sub-sections under an umbrella section.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  17:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've moved the diagram up, but can't do anything about the width mismatch with the infobox.
 * I will leave the suggestion about the grouping to the full-time editors.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll put the diagram/map in the Course section per WP:IMAGELOCATION, as I feel it is more appropriate there.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  08:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

General comments

 * This is an attractive and informative article, well illustrated with images of the river. It appears to be well cited with a range of appropriate sources. I have some initial concerns about layout, and there may be other discussion points as the review progresses - but on a first look through, my feeling is that I don't think there are going to be significant problems, and this will result in a GA listing.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Unclear about "The river was one of the earliest to be granted an act of Parliament for improvements". Sources, such as The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, indicate that acts regarding river navigation had been fairly frequent from Magna Carta onwards - with (understandably) the Thames and the Medway being the first. The sentence is divorced from the cite at the end of the paragraph, and I'm not able to immediately access that source. Does the information come from the source mentioned at the end of the paragraph (The Canals of Eastern England) - or does it come from elsewhere?  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  15:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, it comes from Boyes and Russell. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There's information contained here which is not in the article, such as "The middle Welland is the only place in the country where one might see both English osprey and red kite", "most of its middle reaches destroyed in the 1960s by an excessively-robust land drainage engineering scheme which widened, straightened and lowered the river bed" (history on the article stops in 1953), "In the 19th–early 20th Century the Welland was famous for fattening beef destined for Smithfield market in London", "Eyebrook reservoir", etc. There is always a choice as to what material to include, and this article doesn't need to be comprehensive - just have broad coverage, so some of this material may be part of future consideration, or may have been considered and rejected as not being important.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  16:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting article from the university, but the stuff about Osprey and Kite may be a bit artificial. Osprey were introduced to Rutland Water, after it was flooded in the 70s, and Red Kite were re-introuduced around Deenethorpe in the 80s.  Both have flourished, and the Kites have colonised at least as far as Spalding and inland to Gloucestershire since.  They are spreading far more rapidly than anyone expected.  I even get them in my Garden.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a sentence about the engineering of the channel above Stamford in the 1960s and 1970s. I have not added any more details about Eyebrook Reservoir, as it is on Eye Brook, which is mentioned and wikilinked to its own article, and there is also a wikilink to the article on the reservoir itself. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now added Eyebrook Reservoir to the Course description, since the original link has been deleted by removing the tributaries. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm coming upon a number of sources which mention the Welland Valley, which isn't explicitly mentioned or described in the article. Is this something which should be in the article - or could it be left for future development?  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  16:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is not a single, obvious Welland valley in the visual sense of, oh, the Tamar Valley. Technically, of course, if there is a river there must be a valley between the watersheds.  But I think the expression Welland Valley is used (and abused) by local administrators in much the same way that Thames Valley exists more in the eyes of estate agents and regional planners than on the ground.  Some Welland valley homes are in the Nene Valley (which doesn't exist either!). There is a clear, and very pretty, water-eroded (non-glacial) valley from roughly Duddington to Stamford, through the southern extent of the Lincolnshire Limestone. Above Duddington the landscape is of rounded hills, and the river meanders around those, and below Deeping it is a fenland river, so no valleys at all.  This Picture shows the valley.  It is taken from the high ground to the North, the line of railway wagons is at River level, and the 'massiv' of Easton-on-the-hill is in the distance.  I don't think it warrants a mention.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The Welland Rivers Trust (a link is in the External links), has mention of The Welland Valley Partnership and The Welland Improvement Plan - neither of these appear to be mentioned. How relevant are they?  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  16:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I included at least one of those for the good expositional material, rather than its political purpose. Plans come and go without achieving much.  (Grand Contour Canal for example).  Having a British perspective on things I'd not regard the actual plan and partnership as worthwhile for a couple of hundred years.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since they do seem to be fairly active, I have added two sentences about their setup and the document. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Powers were granted to restore the river using either the old channel or the new one, although it is not clear exactly what was meant by this." Whose voice is making the query? Harod's History of Stamford indicates they are talking about "a new cut to be made". The article also says, "There is no evidence that any work was carried out under the terms of the act." Harod's source says  "a new cut was made from Stamford to Market Deeping". Which is correct?  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  16:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, Boyes and Russell. On p.239, they hazard a guess that "the new" could possibly mean using mill cuts. As explained in the following paragraph, the new cut from Stamford to Market Deeping was authorised by the Commission of Sewers in 1620, some 50 years after the 1571 Act, and ratified by James I in 1623. It wasn't built until the 1660s. I've had a look at Harod, who seems to be referring to the 1660s cut, but doesn't mention the dates. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You folks may have seen it already, however, if not, this may be useful for future development article in Waterways World which gives info on some boat builders on the river. No date - the source is hosted on southhollandlife.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  12:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was the December 1978 edition. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This site is a blog, but mentions the sources used while giving useful summaries regarding early bridges on the river around Stamford, and how the routes have changed over the years.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  12:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it or ? The text says The River Welland while the info box says The Welland.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  13:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC) And sometimes the text has both:.
 * I agree that the title and the infobox should match, and notice it has been changed. However, in normal usage it is both, in the same way that an acticle on Charles Darwin will refer to him as Charles Darwin sometimes, and as Darwin at others. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, there is inconsistency in presenting acts of parliament - sometimes it's Act of Parliament, sometimes act of Parliament, and sometimes act of parliament. My understanding is that the general advice in such matters is that if generic, use lower case, but if specific it becomes a proper noun and takes capitals. Parliament by itself is generic, it becomes a proper noun when used as a name - as in the British Parliament. Discussing an act as an act, and not by name, the use is generic, and so is lower case. An act of parliament is generic until the act is named - the Elizabeth act would be one of these: 1571 (13 Eliz. I) - I suspect it's the Navigation Act 1571.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  14:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Not an easy one to call. I generally write it as Act of Parliament, so it can be wikilinked directly, but some editors prefer act of parliament, so I cannot anticipate in advance which way the review will go. I have altered them all to act of parliament, and used Act of Parliament|act of parliament for the wikilink. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

On hold
A decent article that largely falls within the GA criteria. Some queries regarding a few points, and some attention needs paying to the lead and the layout, and the Tributaries of the River Welland and points of interest sections, which are lists; other than that, the article is fine. I don't see there being any significant issues - so with a bit of tidying up the article should meet GA criteria. I'll inform major contributors and nominator, and put on hold for an initial seven days.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  22:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am a bit busy over the bank holiday weekend, but will return on Tuesday. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Pass
I still have a quibble regarding use of the Points on course table, though not enough to hold up what is essentially a well researched, detailed, and attractively presented article. Listing. Well done.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  10:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. With regard to the POI table, if we had removed it, it would have only appeared in my list of UK Waterways articles lacking a POI table, so I appreciate your accommodation. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I really like the layout with the POI as part of the section on the course.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)