Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Warren County Canal/archive1

Warren County Canal
Self-nom. The story of a short branch of the Miami and Erie Canal in southwest Ohio. I started this on April 15, 2005, and it was today featured on the main page's Did you know? feature. It won't break the record for speediest time from creation to featured status (see Wikipedia Signpost/2005-04-11/Speed feature) but I hope it is ready. It has a bibliography, much of it linked to transcriptions available on line. It is a thorough account of its short existance. Before anyone asks, no, I don't have any photographs or any way to post them if I did. Finally, I'd like to thank User:Bobblewik who kindly metrified my measurements. PedanticallySpeaking 15:52, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * This article is pretty good, but would it be at all possible to get a picture? It would really help the reader get a sense of the place. This is not an objection. Meelar (talk) 18:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support The content and presentation are nicely balanced, references excellent. Maybe one of our WP map and diagram makers could help, as it is hard to picture it. Time period was before photography was very widepread. Vaoverland 19:26, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I was thinking a photo of the area today, but a diagram and map would also be very helpful. Meelar (talk) 19:29, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Pretty much bullet-proof by my standards. I concur with User:Meelar that a diagram or a map of the canal itself would be helpful. Phils 19:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * object a) you state that it consumed water at [..] 1800 cubic feet per minute (850 L/s) [..]. Bogen says it was 2000 cubic feet[..] which kind of implies Bogen was clearly wrong. Could you give the source of the other claim and the reason why it's more certain.  Possibly you could just say "between 1800 and 2000 cubic feet per minute."  and give the source of each claim in a footnote.  This continues through the article (forty-acre (162,000 m²) reservoir vs. forty-five acre (182,000 m²) lake) In any case, it would be best to try to clear this up.  b) it would be helpful to be able to relate which reference relates to which section of text.  You could use "invisible references" or footnotes to help with this. Mozzerati 19:48, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * I would always support greater referencing, but 2000 is well within the range of simple rounding of a more accurate figure. Considering significant figures, variability, and measurement error, asking for more precision where it might not be available is asking for false information. - Taxman 20:28, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I cited the differing opinions. I listed Josiah Morrow's figures first, because he was closer to the scene than the other sources.  However, when he wrote his book, the canal had been out of business for three decades so exact figures probably aren't obtainable without looking through the official papers of the Canal Commissioners and the Board of Public Works, assuming they still exist.  PedanticallySpeaking 15:14, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll try to make a map, if I can figure out the route. --SPUI (talk) 20:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm having some trouble with the map. Can someone provide some information, namely:
 * Which parts of the canal were later used for railroads?
 * For the parts that weren't used for railroads, exactly where did it cross other features like roads?
 * --SPUI (talk) 21:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Neutral Object – no map, no photo. == 20:40, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Map has been added; I got lucky and found a map in the Library of Congress American Memory Collection that shows it. --SPUI (talk) 05:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Will support fully if a photo is added. I have decided to cast a neutral vote, as an image is not absolutely necessary for a FA. == 16:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Does an aerial photo count? Not that it will actually show anything... --SPUI (talk) 15:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * After adding a map and dealing with Mozzeratti's objections, you've got my support. Meelar (talk) 01:04, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)