Talk:Stainforth and Keadby Canal/GA1

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

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 02:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I can do this GA review. Please indicate here if you are still interested. --Noleander (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still keen for the article to be reviewed. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Begin Noleander comments

 * Overall, it looks great. Gorgeous photos!
 * Who? - " The company were pioneers in .." - what company?
 * ✅ Now reads Dunston's company.


 * Wording: "so that stators from Keadby Power Station could be taken away for repairs, ..." - Maybe "so that stators from the nearby KPS could be transported for repairs .."?


 * Link: "The River Don, which flows th .." - link to river article, if it exists
 * ✅ Now linked to River Don, South Yorkshire.


 * Clarify: "Development: In 1828, there was a proposal to build a canal from West Stockwith on the River Trent to the River Don at Doncaster,  ..." - I'm a bit confused: the canal was opened in the prior section in 1802 ... what is this new canal?  How does it relate to the 1802 canal?
 * Not sure how to resolve this. The end of the sentence already says that it would have bypassed the Stainforth and Keadby.


 * Clarify: "Traffic held up surprising well, with the waterways carrying a .." - why is that surprising?
 * ✅ It was surprising because most railway takeovers resulted in serious decline. Reworked to explain the situation without using "surprising".


 * Clarify: "Negotiations with the railway company were long and bitter, and the Navigation company only managed to raise £625,000 of the £1.14 million purchase price, with the result that although they owned the waterways, the railway company still nominated five of the ten directors .." - ?? so the new canal company was or was not able to buy the canals from the RR company?  What did they get for the 625K?
 * ✅ They got ownership, but not freedom from railway control. Wording expanded a little to clarify.


 * Link: "Aire and Calder. ..." - who is that?
 * ✅ Now linked on previous occurence above.


 * Which? - "After the Second World War, the canals were ..." - all canals in UK? or just the canals in the article?
 * ✅ Both. Text expanded to explain the situation.


 * Chronological order: "nationalised on 1 January 1948. The winter was particularly severe, and the Stainforth and Keadby was closed for a period in late 1947 du.." - 1948 event should not be before 1947.


 * History section wrap-up: at end of "Development" subsection: should have a brief summary of the current 21st century situation: canal is still in use and blah blah ...
 * ✅ Added a new paragraph covering ownership and usage from 1948 to 2012.


 * Wording: "(although the spelling is not quite the same)." - Could be clearer; maybe "although the spelling of some of the road names is not consistent with conventional shipyard terminology" or similar. Also, no need for parenthesis.
 * ✅ It is the spelling of Dunston that has changed. Clarified.


 * External links? - If there are any useful External links readers may benefit from, consider putting them at bottom of article.
 * I cannot think of any. Unlike many canals, there is no canal society.


 * Link? - "grade II" - not sure what that is, so link to some article that defines that term.
 * ✅ although grade II listed links to the same article as grade II* listed.


 * Link? - "include the church of St Mary"  - link to church article
 * There is no separate article on the church, and Kirk Bramwith is already linked in the previous sentence.


 * Route overview: - Perhaps start Route section with a brief pagraph giving an overview of the route: N-S?  E-W?  total Length?  Total elevation drop?  Straight? curvy?
 * ✅ Brief introduction added, although drops at locks do not appear to be published.


 * That's all I can find. If you can address the couple of remaining issues (except the ones you mark "not done", I believe you'll have achieved GA status. --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is everything, apart from the 1828 bypass canal comment. I'm not sure what is not clear. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine ... I've re-read it and it looks okay. --Noleander (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)