Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kennet and Avon Canal/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 13:56, 28 July 2011.

Kennet and Avon Canal

 * Nominator(s): &mdash; Rod talk 15:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Kennet and Avon Canal is a historic British industrial waterway, which fell into disuse and has now been restored. The article covers not just the history and engineering but also social and environmental factors. It is nearly 5 years since it was last nominated at FAC. I has been a good article for years and has recently been improved by several editors (notably Bob1960evens) with a recent peer review by Brianboulton and EdJogg along with a copy edit by Malleus Fatuorum. If there are any outstanding issues identified I will attempt to address them in a timely manner.&mdash; Rod talk 15:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "the Avon flows through the artificial New Cut, reducing currents and silting in the harbour and preventing flooding." - source?
 * Ref added.&mdash; Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "When canal boats were still pulled by horses, the boatmen had to haul boats through the tunnel by hand, pulling on chains that ran along the inside walls." - source?
 * Ref added.&mdash; Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hadfield or Hadfields? David and Charles or David & Charles? Check for consistency
 * I've changed Hadfields to Hadfield & David and Charles to David & Charles (as that's what it says on the books). Hope I've got them all.&mdash; Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not include both authors for Halse?
 * Done&mdash; Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Location for Haslam?
 * Added&mdash; Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are all locations listed in the UK?
 * Yes & I've added these in.&mdash; Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
 * Done&mdash; Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Combine identical refs - ex 15 and 16
 * Done&mdash; Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is SSSI?
 * SSSI= Site of Special Scientific Interest (as written in full in first sentence of ecology) I can put in full in all SSSI citation sheets if required?&mdash; Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this site authored by staff of the museum?
 * Yes see .&mdash; Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Compare formatting of refs 43 and 44
 * Changed.&mdash; Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 102: publisher?
 * Added&mdash; Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this page entirely copied from the listed source, or does it only derive the numerical list from there?
 * I'm sorry I don't understand that question.&mdash; Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The page says "These seven wonders of the waterways are as listed by Robert Aickman" - I wondered whether Aickman is the source of all the material on that page (including the description of each "wonder"), or whether he only listed the wonders (ie. 1. Devizes Locks, 2. Pontcysyllte Aqueduct...) and the descriptions were created by Jim Shead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I will ask at WikiProject UK Waterways in case anyone has access to the original book and can answer the question.&mdash; Rod talk 13:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replaced "floating down the river" as a source with Allsop's book.&mdash; Rod talk 12:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Bath to Devizes section
 * I have noted a number of queries on the article talk page. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Issues (hopefully) responded to on the talk page.&mdash; Rod talk 16:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A few points above, a number of references are duplicated and could be combined, but I have not done so in order to keep the current numbering. The prose is good. I can support if these few points are addressed. I have only been able to check Allsopp and Nicholson of the off-line references. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * spotchecks on sources, paraphrasing, verifiability
 * 1) ref #1 length verified
 * 2) ref #3 dangers of sea voyages and construction of mills verified
 * 3) ref #4 first cargo verified
 * 4) ref #6 caen hill locks, final task verified
 * 5) ref #14 pillboxes and their survival; defence line verified
 * 6) ref #16 restoration start, odonata verified
 * 7) ref #20 "the canal was reopened from the thames to hungerford wharf in july 1974", lottery funding verified
 * 8) ref #21 repuddling, polythene lining and concrete cradle verified
 * 9) ref #26 lottery funding verified
 * 10) ref #28 - no mention of prince charles or 2003
 * 11) ref #29 - just a front page of a web site, no specific support for the statement
 * 12) ref #30 bradford lock wharves and dundas aqueduct statements verified
 * 13) ref #32 bath limestone verified
 * 14) ref #33 cruiseway information verified
 * 15) ref #34, 35, 36, 37, 38 cumulatively confirm the information but the calculation may be wp:syn
 * 16) ref #39 coal mine closure verfified
 * 17) ref #40 tidal status verified
 * 18) ref #41 bath aspargus status verified
 * 19) ref #42 geology verified
 * 20) ref #43 water mills and lock destruction verified
 * 21) ref #44 glaciation history explanation verified
 * 22) ref #45 dutch island verified
 * 23) ref #46 does not support the statement: "bath bottom lock marks the divergence of the river avon and the canal, 766 yards (700 m) south of pulteney bridge."
 * 24) ref #47 support pumping station, but not the detail
 * 25) ref #48 does not support the detail, just the existence of the lock
 * 26) ref #49 statement verified
 * 27) ref #50 location supported by os ref
 * 28) ref #51 location supported by os ref
 * 29) ref #52 location supported by os ref
 * 30) ref #53, 54 location supported by os ref
 * 31) ref #56 listed status and history verified
 * 32) ref #57-62 listed status verified
 * 33) ref #63 species verified
 * 34) ref #66 tree species verified
 * 35) ref #67 naming verified
 * 36) ref #70 information verified
 * 37) ref #71 tithe barn verified
 * 38) ref #72 information verified
 * 39) ref #73 aqueduct collapse verified
 * 40) ref #74 wilts & berks verified
 * 41) ref #75 lock details verified
 * 42) ref #76 information verified, should robert aickman be credited in the cite
 * 43) ref #77 information verified
 * 44) ref #78 information verified
 * 45) ref #81 race history verified
 * 46) ref #82 information verified
 * 47) ref #84 information verified
 * 48) ref #85 information verified, but exact copy of text - use as a quote " to serve Honey Street wharf in Alton parish, which refused to have drinking houses."
 * 49) ref #86 information verified
 * 50) ref #87 information verified
 * 51) ref #91 information verified
 * 52) ref #92, 93 information verified
 * 53) ref #94 information verified
 * 54) ref #95 information verified
 * 55) ref #97 information verified
 * 56) ref #98 information verified
 * 57) ref #99 information verified, should state msword format
 * 58) ref #100 information verified
 * 59) ref #101 page 133 refers to dorset and purbeck, i think the page ref is wrong
 * 60) ref #102 information verified
 * 61) ref #103 information verified
 * 62) ref #104 information verified
 * 63) ref #105 information verified
 * 64) ref #106 nothing about a wooden bridge here
 * 65) ref #107 but this does have the wooden bridge
 * 66) ref #110 information verified
 * 67) ref #111 information verified
 * 68) ref #112 information verified
 * 69) ref #113 information verified
 * 70) ref #114 information verified
 * 71) ref #115 information verified
 * 72) ref #116 information verified
 * 73) ref #117 site has changed, dead link
 * 74) ref #118 information verified
 * 75) ref #119 information verified
 * 76) ref #120 information verified
 * 77) ref #123 "led to reading's importance as a river port in the middle ages." is a direct quote and should be rendered as such
 * 78) ref #124 information verified
 * 79) ref #125 information verified
 * 80) ref #126 information verified
 * 81) ref #127 information verified
 * 82) ref #128 information verified
 * 83) ref #129 information verified
 * 84) ref #130-134 information verified
 * 85) ref #136 information verified
 * 86) ref #137 information verified
 * 87) ref #139 information verified
 * 88) ref #141 information verified
 * 89) ref #142 information verified
 * Thanks for all this checking.
 * Refs 28 & 29 - I've added another ref for Prince Charles visit & removed the one which just pointed to a front page
 * Ref 46 I've taken out the detail (766 yards (700 m)) which was not supported by the reference
 * Refs 47 & 48 I've reused an existing ref (Allsop p21) which does support the claim re the pump
 * Ref 76 I've added a quote to the reference saying based on Aikman's book
 * Ref 99 format=word added
 * Ref 101 the page number is correct, but it is the last item in the table on that page & goes over to p134 so I've added that in.
 * Refs 106 & 107 I have reworded the sentence about the wooden bridge so the reference supports the statement
 * Ref 117 I have removed the claim re the purchase price which was in the deadlink - the rest of the sentence is supported by Ref 118 (now 117)
 * Ref 123 (now 122) I have reworded this to overcome the copyvio of a whole (long) sentence.
 * I've looked for duplicates but the ones I can see are for different page nos etc. If there are others let me know & I will combine them.&mdash; Rod talk 15:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, just ref 85, now ref 84. My mistake about the duplicates, I can't see any now. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added speech marks for the text about Honey Street - can reword if required.&mdash; Rod talk 19:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

All appear to be licensed and captioned correctly. File:Devizeslockspreresotoration.jpg is of rather poor resolution and I wonder if it is really necessary? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Images
 * This is the only image we have (with appropriate license etc) which shows the state of dereliction and indicates the restoration effort needed. The poor quality probably relates to camera technology in the 1970s and/or scanning from a film based system. I am not aware of any suitable alternatives.&mdash; Rod talk 15:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have managed to sharpen this image up a little. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, my concerns have been addressed, I believe that the article meets the criteria, so am happy to support. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for the moment, with regret Comment: I peer-reviewed the early parts of this article, and some of my concerns were addressed then, but frankly, the prose and punctuation are not yet up to FA standard. Here are a few points I have picked up on my most recent reading, to the midpoint of the Restoration section. Note also that I have carried out numerous copyedits on my way through:-
 * Be consistent as between "Kennet navigation" and "Kennet Navigation". The latter seems the more correct
 * Done.&mdash; Rod talk 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Overdetailing italicised (by me): "The purchase from Frederick Page cost £100,000, of which £70,000 was paid in cash with the balance paid back over a period of time. Information not really relevant to this article. Maybe check for other instances in the article of unnecessary detail.
 * This additional detail was added in response to a comment at a previous stage of review, although it could be removed.&mdash; Rod talk 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "...annual revenue of around £45,000 a year." Last two words redundant.
 * Done.&mdash; Rod talk 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The information about WW2 "pillboxes"; where were they built in relation to the canal?
 * More info added.&mdash; Rod talk 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be useful to know who formed the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust. Likewise, you refer to the "newly-formed" British Waterways; who formed it, and what were its responsibilities?
 * Info added on both.&mdash; Rod talk 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Overcomplicated and confusing sentence: "Other work included a new bridge at Bridge Street in Reading to overcome a long standing obstruction caused by strengthening girders added to the underside of the bridge which had reduced the navigable headroom from 8 feet 6 inches (2.59 m) to 4 feet 6 inches (1.37 m)".
 * Reworded.&mdash; Rod talk 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The concept of the canal's "summit" needs to be explained at first mention.
 * Linked to Route summit and "at the highest point of the canal" added.&mdash; Rod talk 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Another messy sentence: "In 1988 the restoration of Woolhampton Lock was completed however it could not be used by boats as, on one side, Frounds Bridge could not be opened and on the other the restoration of Midgham Lock had not been finished, although these were completed the following year."
 * Reworded.&mdash; Rod talk 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A glance through the later parts of the article indicates similar problems with prose and punctuation. However, I believe that these are readily resolvable within the constraints of this FAC, if someone is prepared to give the article a full copyedit. When this has been done I will be more than willing to reconsider my oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments (and the copy editing you have done). I will attempt to add and remove detail as you suggest in your comments and I have asked for help with copy editing.&mdash; Rod talk 16:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I note that Malleus is on the copyediting case, which bodes well. Perhaps you or he would ping me when the job is done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Further comment: You have attended to my initial concerns, and the copyediting has improved the prose, so I have struck my original oppose. I don't have time to complete a full review, but could you comment on one or two points?
 * "The River Avon was navigable from Bristol to Bath during the early years of the 13th century, until the construction of mills on the river forced its closure." Why would the construction of mills cause the closure of the river's navigation?
 * Clew doesn't give more info, just that it was restricted by the construction of mills, however this says that weirs were constructed across the river (presumably to hold back a head of water to provide power for the mills) which would have meant that craft could not pass them.&mdash; Rod talk 07:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I found it quite hard to relate the text in the "route" sections to the charts alongside. Take the first one: Bristol to Bath. There is no mention in the chart of the "Floating Harbour"; in the text there is no mention of "Cumberland Basin" which seems to be a major feature. From the chart the river appears to have two channels, which is not explained in the text. I think it important that there is clear consistency between what's in the text and what's in the charts.
 * Bristol Harbour (which is also known as the Floating Harbour & which the Cumberland Basin is a part of) is not considered by any of the sources to be part of the K&A. It was built separately and served a different purpose. A little text was included for completeness with a link for those who need more information (however this was removed by this edit) following previous review discussions on the talk page (around 2nd July). The "2nd channel" is the New Cut (Bristol) constructed to carry the river water (and tidal flows) away from the harbour. This was added to the route diagram for exactly the consistency you are asking for and, if it is not included in the text could be removed from the diagram. I can add the relevant text (or a revised version) back into the article if needed?&mdash; Rod talk 07:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have drastically pruned the routemap to address these concerns. The routemap now refers to the Floating Harbour directly, and ignores the other detail, which is distracting in this article. The large size of the icon used for 'docks' over-emphasised the Cumberland Basin. I touched on this when we attempted the previous edit, but I don't think we carried any suggestions through. I think the text and the map are now more in sync -- does this address the concerns adequately? -- EdJogg (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The level of detail in the "route" sections is impressive, but possibly more suited to a guidebook than a summary encyclopedia article? Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there specifics which you feel should be removed?&mdash; Rod talk 07:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a wish to provide a commentary for the routemaps. This formed the bulk of the article before this year's push towards GA/FA was started and other information provided. Finding the right level of detail is tricky -- we don't mention every lock for example -- but we do in some places, and the Bristol/Bath end is covered much more completely. The text has tended to be tailored to match the length of the accompanying map (to avoid whitespace on a standard 1280x1024 monitor). -- EdJogg (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: I appreciate that efforts have been made to meet my concerns, and I have no qualms now about supporting the article's promotion. A very sound piece of work on which much effort has been expended. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Jaguar:

 * "The idea of an east to west waterway link across southern England was first mentioned in Elizabethan times, to take advantage of the proximity of the rivers Avon and Thames, only 3 miles (4.8 km) apart at their closest. Around 1626 Henry Briggs made a survey of the two rivers" - bad sentence. It says that Henry Briggs made the survey in Elizabethen times in 1626. But the Elizabethen era ended in 1603.
 * There is a full stop between the sentence about Elizabethan plans and the separate information about the 1626 survey, so I don't quite see the problem.&mdash; Rod talk 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand the problem. This actually reads like there was this one plan, by Briggs -- in 1626/Elizabethan times -- whereas I think we are wanting to say there was a plan earlier than Briggs. Part of the problem is we assume that the reader is aware that Elizabethan times finished in 1603. I must admit that I assumed that 1626 was in Elizabethan times. Perhaps the problem is we don't elaborate on exactly when the original idea was mooted (OK, maybe we don't know) since that might clarify matters. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK I think I get it now. Clew doesn't give any further details of the earliest plans but I have added the dates for the Elizabethan era & "Later" for the 1626 survey. Hopefully this makes it clearer.&mdash; Rod talk 13:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "The final engineering task was the completion of the Caen Hill Locks at Devizes." It already said in the paragraph that the canal was completed in 1810, but this sentence makes out that the locks at Devizes took longer. When was this completed?
 * The previous sentence explains that the final section Caen Hill Locks at Devizes was completed in 1810, which was the final bit to be completed, so again I'm not sure what the problem is with this.&mdash; Rod talk 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "In 1963 the newly formed British Waterways, which was created by the Transport Act 1962" - question: Wouldn't it be good if the link to the Transport Act 1962 be renamed to 'Transport Act'? It says that the British Waterways was founded in 1963, so the Act set up in 1962 might confuse the reader. I have also done this to an act that was set up in the 40s in the same paragraph.
 * I have reworded this to try to remove any confusion over the dates.&mdash; Rod talk 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Lock number one on the Kennet and Avon Canal is Hanham Lock, first opened in 1727" - wait. The canal opened in 1810? Or is this to do with the River Avon and not the canal?
 * Hanham Lock is on the Avon Navigation.&mdash; Rod talk 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's me trying to emphasise that we're talking about the K&A from here, and not the rest of the Avon. Maybe it should be re-worded to: "Lock number one on the Kennet and Avon Canal is Hanham Lock, first opened as part of the Avon Navigation in 1727." ?? -- EdJogg (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks I have changed in line with your suggested wording.&mdash; Rod talk 13:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The list is not complete yet. I will find more sentences that will need check in the mean time. I have already found a few sentences that will need some copy editing, but most of them I have done a few myself. Jaguar (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Restoration work involved a collaboration between staff from British Waterways and volunteer labour." - It would be better if the sentence could explain what type of volunteer work it was, eg. was it local? I'm sure this sentence is no big deal, don't worry!
 * "Monkey Marsh Lock at Thatcham is one of only two remaining working examples of turf-sided locks on the canal today." - This is interesting. But could have a reference to Garston Lock in this sentence? (it is the other turf-sided lock on the canal).
 * Thanks for your copy edits & comments. The volunteer labour varied at different points along the canal (according to Lindley-Jones) so would probably be too much specific detail to include. Garston Lock being the other turf sided lock is mentioned a couple of paragraphs further down (as it is a few miles east). Do you think it would be useful to duplicate this or rearrange the sentences to bring them together?&mdash; Rod talk 14:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rearranging the sentences would make more sense as the two turf-sides locks should be mentioned together (for example, 'there are only two remaining turf-sided locks on the canal, such as Monkey Marsh and Garston). Don't worry too much about the volunteer labour stuff; the thing to avoid is too much detail! Jaguar (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Support As all of my issues have been addressed and with all the copy editing stuff done, I will be very happy to give my full support for this article and I wish it good luck passing the FAC. Jaguar (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Source review by Reaper Eternal
 * Bristol to Bath
 * "A public house has been built on the island between Keynsham Lock and the weir. The weir side of the island is also the mouth of the River Chew." - This is unreferenced.
 * "Many of the bridges over the canal are listed buildings.[60][61][62][63][64][65] " - Since these citations are all used here and only here, consider bundling per WP:CITEBUNDLE.
 * "The canal turns south into a valley between Bathampton Wood and Bathford Hill which includes Brown's Folly a 99-acre (40 ha) biological and geological Site of Special Scientific Interest." - Needs a source.
 * "...and a 14th-century Grade II* listed tithe barn, 180 feet (55 m) long and 30 feet (9 m) wide,[74] on its way into Bradford on Avon." - If ref #74 covers the whole paragraph sentence, it should be at the end.
 * Still not fixed. Ref has now changed number to #71, though.
 * "...but full restoration will be a long process." - Unsourced, so who says this?
 * Devizes to Newbury
 * "Heading east from Devizes the canal passes through the Wiltshire countryside and a series of locks and swing bridges before another flight of locks at Crofton." - This is unsourced. A would probably work well here.
 * "...but for day-to-day operation electric pumps are used, automatically controlled by the water level in the summit pound." - This is unsourced.
 * Newbury to Reading
 * "The River Kennet is navigable from Newbury downstream to the confluence with the River Thames at Kennet Mouth, in Reading." - If ref #112 covers this, there should be a citation at the end of this paragraph.
 * "Today the Brewery Gut is a major feature of Reading's The Oracle shopping centre." - Who says this?
 * "The Horseshoe Bridge at Kennet Mouth, a timber-clad iron-truss structure, was built in 1891 to enable horses towing barges to cross the river." - This needs to be sourced.
 * Overall, the writeup looks good, and a could probably be used for many of these citations. After this is cleaned up, I will go over the prose. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for spotting these. I have added or adjusted references as suggested above.&mdash; Rod talk 16:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for resolving these issues, but one has not been fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Source/copyvio spotchecks by Reaper Eternal
 * Ref #74: Does not appear to support information in question. This is probably since it is linked to a blog frontpage, and the information is continually replaced. You will want to link to the exact article that supports this information.
 * Ref #81: Only seems to support the last sentence in its paragraph.
 * Ref #104: No close paraphrasing found. However, it does not support this claim: "Hungerford Marsh Lock is unique on the Kennet and Avon Canal in that it has a swing bridge directly over the centre of the lock that must be opened before the lock may be used."
 * Ref #118: No close paraphrasing found.
 * Other quick copyvio checks turned up nothing, so probably no issues there.
 * Would you mind checking your major online sources more carefully, as it seems some of them do not support their material? Once this is resolved, I think I can support this article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope I've dealt with the specifics you have identified by changing or adding the references. I've also looked at some of the other online sources and haven't identified any other problems, but of course if you do please let me know.&mdash; Rod talk 14:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Good. I can now support this article. Thank you for cleaning these issues! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The nominator Rodw will be away and have no internet access between 29 July and 8 August. Others have kindly agreed to respond to reviewers comments. In case of problems I will respond on my return.&mdash; Rod talk 13:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have indicated my willingness to try and respond to comments, Will take look tomorrow. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.