Talk:Stroudwater Navigation/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 17:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I will review this nomination, but unfortunately there is likely to be a gap of about one week in the middle of the review when I'm not going to be around. Pyrotec (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm back somewhat later than anticipated, so I'll be resuming the review tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've now (at long last) done a quick initial read of this article and the nomination appears to be at or about GA-level, but I've not checked any references or citations. I'm now going to work my way through the article in more depth starting at the History section and finishing with the Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * History -
 * Construction -
 * Ref 2, "Victoria County History", was and still is published as printed books (see http://www.victoriacountyhistory.ac.uk/counties/gloucestershire/publications) (I own two volumes, but of a different county), some volumes of which are free-to-view in digital form. The ref aught to be properly cited (I'd prefer the printed form with a web link); and in fact the full details including the web page citation are given on the web page. All that is needed is to copy and paste it on to wikipedia.
 * Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Operation -
 * I added a few wikilinks, but this subsection is OK.


 * Decline -
 * OK.


 * Restoration -
 * Untitled subsection -
 * I have a copy of Russell (bought new @ £2.95), I think I also spent a weekend help to clean out a lock in the early 1970s (but it could have been the late 1970s and my memory is not a reliable source - I need to check whether I have any 35mm transparencies of this work party, they'll be date-stamped).


 * Funding -
 * I added a few wikilinks, otherwise OK.


 * Development -
 * I added a few wikilinks, otherwise OK.

...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Lead -
 * Sorry for the further delay. I've now reviewed the WP:Lead.
 * The lead provides quite a good introduction to the topic of the article and provides a reasonable summary of the body of the article. However, in parts it's a bit "thin". Without wishing to impose a major rewrite, I'd suggest that the final paragraph could be split into two - perhaps stopping at the £11.9 million grant - and some information is given about the physical problems of restoring it navigation. This could be as simple as mentioning that the canal is blocked by two roadways, the M5 and the A38, which also lead to the loss of one lock; and part of its bed is used for flood relief.
 * I'm also willing to consider alternative approaches.
 * ✅ I have split it after the mention of what the £11.9M was for, and expanded the final bit to include the engineering problems of the roads, the flood relief channel and the railway culvert, as well as mentioning a funding bid to the Gloucestershire Local Transport Board.
 * Thanks. I did a minor copyedit on the Lead to "tighten" it up a bit. Pyrotec (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'm putting the review "On hold", I would expect to be able to award GA-status once the Lead has been fixed. Pyrotec (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary
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:
 * Well illustrated, with relevant images.
 * 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:
 * Well illustrated, with relevant images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on achieving yet another GA-class article to add to your list of GAs. Pyrotec (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)