Wikipedia:Peer review/Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal/archive1

Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I and others have done significant work on it recently, and would appreciate any criticism with a view to proposing it as a featured article candidate. I've added as much detail as I can right now, there is one reference that doesn't have page numbers. The gallery I'm unsure of, as well as the table formatting. I'm most interested though to know if any readers come away with a sound knowledge of the subject and its history. I'd also like input on some of the references, are they all suitable for this article, particularly references that go to pages that show primarily images?

Thanks, Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: In terms of content this looks very good - seems comprehensive and fairly well referenced. Still needs some work to get to FA, so, very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and this one seems to need some more details. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. I was surprised that the length of the canal(s) and the number of locks were not in the lead, for example. Please see WP:LEAD - DONE
 * Having Features right after the lead seems a bit odd organizationally, would it be better to start with either the History or perhaps with a descripion of the course of the canal? That way the items in the Features section have some context for the reader not familiar with the geography of the area. - DONE
 * Put abbreviations after the first use of the full term, so (a depiction of which is used as the logo of the MB&B Canal Society) took me a second to figure out what MB&B was. - DONE - I removed the abbreviation, its only used once anyway.
 * Provide context for the reader - the map Image:MBB canal map.gif shows blue and red sections, but does not explain the color scheme (assume blue stretches still have water and red do not). - pending permission for the file, I will expand on the description
 * You can explain it in the caption and the text decription on the image page. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The same map may be a copyright violation - the webpage it is taken from has no free license comaptible with the claimed Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. If the website has given permission to use this map and perhaps other images, then an email or letter needs to be sent to Wikipedia / Wikimedia to confirm this, see WP:OTRS. - I did have permission, I will seek OTRS for it. An oversight on my part.
 * There are a lot of one or two sentence paragraphs that break up the flow of the article - can the be combined with others or expanded? - DONE
 * Some things need a ref, for example the blockquote following The Manchester Evening News reported the breach on 7 July 1936: needs a cite ad may be too long a quote too. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. - I have the article but not at home, I will find out the author and page number and ref it. I think the quote should stand as its an interesting (if somewhat embellished methinks!) tale :)
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V - DONE
 * There are several lists (Subscribers, committees) that could be converted to prose text (and may be too much detail - could they be summarized instead). The first needs a ref. - I will seek help for this
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples - Talyllyn Railway is another British transport system now run by volunteers and may be a useful FA model
 * PS Thanks for your very thorough review elsewhere.


 * Thanks for the review and the excellent points, I have addressed some, and will address them all in course. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE. - DONE
 * What makes the following sources reliable?
 * http://www.mbbcanal.demon.co.uk/ - Most of the references are for images only, but it does seem quite an out-of-date website in general so I could remove any other references?
 * http://www.jim-shead.com/waterways/index.php - I will email and ask for his sources
 * http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/index.htm - A fairly authoritative source of information and the site owner is a regular contributor to canal newsgroups, I can however email him and ask if he could offer some sources?
 * http://www.cottontown.org/page.cfm?pageid=257
 * http://www.uncutfishing.co.uk/canals.html - From memory backs up the information in the Tomlinson book, but I can remove it if necessary - I would have to re-check the Tomlinson reference to this line though
 * http://www.electricscotland.com/index.html - http://www.electricscotland.com/index.html - seems fairly trustworthy to me but I'm no expert on what Wikipedia judges to be reliable so I'll leave it there for now and take advice
 * http://www.steamindex.com/backtrak/bt17.htm#252
 * http://bikerides.dsracing.me.uk/canal/mancan.htm - Images are pretty recent, the last couple of years. I have been up and down the entire canal myself and can attest to this, however it verges on original research for me to say as such.  I could visit and take my own images if that would be better?
 * http://michaelchase.fotopic.net/c1489894.html - Images show WRG working with society, as per article text
 * Current ref 15 this is formatted like a website currently, but really, its a reprint of a book (The Victoria County History of Lancaster) and should be formatted as a book. Note that the webpage handily gives you a helping hand by listing one form of it at the top by Citation! - DONE
 * Current ref 18 needs page numbers
 * Current ref 31 needs a publisher given (it's currently in the link title, but it should be listed outside the link title for clarity) Same goes for ref 60, 69, and 88. - DONE
 * Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals (current ref 95 is) - DONE
 * http://www.geocities.com/radcliffeuk/misc/misc-frame.html gives a "this is a frames" message. Also, what would make this site reliable? - DONE - removed
 * current ref 104 is lacking a publisher. - DONE
 * http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/newsroom/stories/restoration_in_salford.html deadlinks - DONE
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)