Talk:Stamford Canal/GA1

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

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 01:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I can do this review. Is the nominator still interested? --Noleander (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I note the discussion on User_talk:Robert_EA_Harvey, and would be very willing to handle any queries that come up as part of the review, as I was one of the main contributors to the article. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

 * Needs a locator map; or, at least, a lat/long link in UR corner that readers can click on to get a map
 * The Points of Interest table has a "Map of all coordinates from Google" (which uses the kml template). This overlays all the points in the table onto Google maps, which is usually adequate. Were you thinking of something else? Bob1960evens (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * History: it would be nice to have some mention of how it was dug:  by hand, I suppose;  by imported laborers? Locals?
 * ✅ Found some stuff in Simpson on probable construction methods, and sources of labour.


 * Clarify: "Trade thrived, for Richard Blome recorded the prosperous Stamford malt trade in 1673." - not sure what the connection is there.
 * ✅ The malt trade depended on carriage of barley by water. Clarified.


 * Clarify: "Although there are no known records of the actual construction of the canal, ..." - That is ambiguous: it could mean no records of the process used to build the canal; or it could mean no records of the design/mechanics/size. Later words imply the latter; but it should be clearer.
 * ✅ Clarified by adding details to the construction methods section, and by rewording here.


 * Picture captions: "TF065069" etc - reader will have no idea what that means.  Use textual captions.
 * ✅ I have reused one of the pictures in the text, but hidden the other for now. Perhaps I will drive down and see if I can take a better one.


 * Picture gallery: Maybe the 2 pics would be better just randomly set in the article left/right sides.
 * (see above)


 * Specific? - "Its construction preceded the 'canal age' by around 100 years, making it one of England's earliest canals." - If it were the 2nd or 3rd major canal, that would be worth specifically mentioning.
 * I have added a ref for 100 years before the canal age, but cannot find anything that mentions 2nd or 3rd, etc. I am aware that the Exeter Canal was earlier, but do not know which others might be contenders.


 * Which? - "locks were built on the river, .." - which river?
 * ✅ The River Welland. Clarified.


 * Wording: "upstream of here ... " - "here" doesnt seem right in an encyclopedia article.   Maybe "there" or just re-state the location.
 * ✅ Reworded.


 * Huh? - " Dog in a doublet sluice " - is that a pub?
 * ✅ The sluice is called Dog in a Doublet, and there is a pub with the same name nearby. Streetmap.co.uk can find the place from "Dog in a Doublet", so it is difficult to know which takes its name from which. I have now mentioned the pub, and provided a ref for the sluice.


 * Overall, looks great ... having a hard time finding suggestions for improvement. Go ahead and address those issues above you concur with.
 * I have expanded the lead a little, and I think I have addressed all the issues raised. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)