Wikipedia:Peer review/Manchester Ship Canal/archive1

Manchester Ship Canal
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've been working on and off at this (more off than on, admittedly) for what seems like forever now, and I'd really like to finish it off by steering it through FAC if at all possible. It's not the most exciting topic in Wikipedia, but it was a truly staggering feat of Victorian engineering that I think deserves the best treatment we can give it. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Brief comments from Nikkimaria
 * Owen 1988 or 1983? Willan 1997 or 1977?
 * Missing bibliographic info for King 2006
 * No citations to Dickson 1994, Fisher 2009
 * Probably don't need to wikilink common terms like warehouse
 * File:Queen_Victoria_opening_the_Manchester_Ship_Canal.jpg: "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think I got all those except for the licensing of the image, which I'll look into or just remove. Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the image. Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Malleus, can you include a link to this review on the article's talkpage? This is missing at the moment. Meanwhile I will review the prose. As a Liverpudlian, I have some memories of this canal, though we had a slightly different name for it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. For some reason I thought that happened automatically. Malleus Fatuorum 15:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Here are my observations on the first half or so. The rest will follow later, probably tomorrow:-
 * Lead
 * I see that you have converted the 1894 £15 million to a present-day value of £1.27 billion. Although this is uncited, it is clear from later conversions that you are using the RPI basis from MeasuringWorth.com.  MW specifically states (see Choosing the Best Indicator to Measure Relative Worth) that the current value of major engineering projects such as this should be ascertained not on the RPI basis you have used, but on the GDP deflater basis, whereby the 1894 £15m becomes £1.59 billion. As MW is your authority, I think you need to follow its principles. Because use of MW has in the past caused wrangles at FAC, I'd advise that you add to the initial conversion a footnote stating the conversion method you have used, adding that "other measures exist".
 * Some of the prose isn't as smooth as it could be. In the second paragraph, second sentence, "the canal's route" reads better as "its route". In the same sentence the second "and" could be "that is". The first sentence of the third paragraph needs to read "despite its being" to be grammatically correct.
 * Do you need to say "privately owned" rather than just "owned"?
 * Early history
 * "not always sufficient draft for a fully laden boat." I believe that the term "draft" is the measurement of the underwater part of a ship's hull, not a general term meaning a depth of water. "Not always sufficient depth of water for a fully laden boat" might be clearer.
 * "In 1825 an application had been made to Parliament for an Act to allow the construction of a ship canal between the mouth of the River Dee and Manchester..." Who made this application? You also need to be a bit more specific about what is meant by a "ship canal" in this context.
 * I'm a bit confused by the end of the first paragraph. It was stated earlier that the canal was suitable only for boats "of moderate size", yet here we are told that it was open to "larger" boats, albeit for only parts of the year. Maybe "larger" is used in a relative sense, but perhaps a different choice of words would avoid confusion.
 * Who "perceived" the dues and rail charges to be excessive?
 * "Liverpool to Manchester railways" → "Liverpool-to-Manchester railways"
 * "The idea of a canal was championed..." → "The idea of a ship canal was championed..."
 * "...fierce opposition from the city of Liverpool" - not sure what you mean by "the city" in this context. Corporation? Business community?
 * Finance
 * "underwritten": Pipe link to underwriting
 * "...the company appealed for funds to Manchester Corporation, which set up a Ship Canal Committee" - you have referred to a committee of that name in the previous paragraph, so some way of distinguishing between the two similarly-named committees is necessary.
 * Please clarify: "In return the corporation appointed five of the fifteen members of the board of directors". Was this a permanent right to appoint? (it appears from subsequent text that it was intended to be, so I'd rephrase: "In return the corporation was given the right to appoint five..." etc)
 * "Manchester Corporation" and "Manchester City Council" - same body?
 * The last paragraph of this section seems out of place, since it jumps forward 100 years. Maybe resite it in the "Present day" section?
 * Construction
 * "finally completely" - consecutive adverbs not good.
 * "4½d" needs explaining to any Brit under about 55, and to non-Brits of any age. And I am personally unconvinced, whatever Mr Officer's formula may say, that a wage of three shillings and ninepence a day in 1894 equates to a contemporary wage of £70 per day.
 * How do you raise a canal's water level? Do you mean that a further 2 feet of depth was excavated?
 * Operational history
 * Per lead comment, "despite being" → "despite its being"
 * There's a gap in the Operational history text of about 70 years. Information about levels of activity is given in the following table, but I believe that the two paragraphs of text need to be linked by a couple of sentences, perhaps briefly commenting on the table.
 * Route
 * We need some sort of map. It's very difficult, otherwise, to make much sense of the "Geography" section unless you happen to know where these places are in relation to each other.

To be concluded. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Replies.
 * Lead
 * I've removed the conversion from the lead, as I'd prefer to deal with that issue in the body of the text, which now uses the GDP deflater method of calculation with an explanatory note added.
 * The prose issues are fixed I think, although I hate that "despite its being".
 * I think "privately owned" is important, as almost all canals in the UK are in public ownership.


 * Early History
 * Changed to "not always sufficient depth of water for a fully laden boat" as per your suggestion.
 * I'm not sure who made the application in 1825; I'll need to check and come back to this.
 * "Larger" was indeed being used in a relative sense, the larger of the boats able to navigate the canal. I've switched the sentence around to try and make that clearer; it now says "and was closed to all but the smaller boats for 264 out of 311 working days".
 * Manchester's businessmen, who had to pay the dues. I've elaborated by saying "were perceived to be excessive by Manchester's business community".
 * I'm really unhappy with the hyphenation in "Liverpool-to-Manchester railways". Hyphenation exists to resolve ambiguity, but I don't see any ambiguity there.
 * Changed "canal" to "ship canal".
 * I mean opposition from the city of Liverpool across the board. The corporation, merchants, and local press. That's why it doesn't say "City of Liverpool".


 * Financing
 * Added link to underwriting.
 * There were two Ship Canal Committees, one set up by Adamson at the start of the project and another by Manchester Corporation when it got into financial difficulties. I'm not sure what I can do about that.
 * I don't know whether it was intended to be a permanent right to appoint or not, but the arrangement only lasted for little more than a year before Manchester Corporation took a majority of the seats on the board anyway. I've changed it to "In return the corporation was allowed to appoint five of the fifteen members of the board of directors". One thing your observation has reminded me of though is that I need to say something about the effect the corporation's investment in the ship canal had on local rates.
 * Manchester Corporation and Manchester City Council are the same body, yes, Perhaps a note might be in order to explain that?
 * I've added a note.
 * I've moved the last paragraph to the Present day section and shuffled that material to hopefully integrate better.


 * Construction
 * Changed "finally completely" to "completely".
 * as you say, they dug out a bit more canal, now changed to: "In 1909 the depth of the canal was increased by 2 feet".


 * Route.
 * There is a map, but it was moved to the References section, perhaps because it was felt to be too big. Now moved to the Geography section.
 * Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had in mind a geographic map, along the lines of this, from the Panama Canal article. The schematic diagram doesn't help us to understand the geographical location of the canal. If a pre-1923 map doesn't exist (I suspect one does), maybe one of our clever mapmakers could make up something based on this, say
 * I'll see what I can dig up. That's probably something Parrot of Doom could do if he has time, as he produced this map for the Moors murders; I'll ask. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Review continues...
 * Geography:
 * re my earlier comments, an alternative to a geographical map might be to expand this section, giving more details of the course of the canal and relating it to the diagram now alongside. This diagram, incidentally, should indicate clearly that the top is the Liverpool end of the canal, so that the reader is able to orientate more quickly.
 * Locks
 * Clarify that by "terminal docks" you mean those at the Manchester end
 * Docks and wharfs
 * There's a punc problem with "Pomona Docks have also been filled in, and remain largely derelict except for the still intact No. 3 Dock,..." To get the sense I believe you want, the comma needs to be relocated after "derelict"
 * That sentence has been bothering me for some time: Changed to "Pomona Docks except for the still intact No. 3 Dock have also been filled in, and are largely derelict ...". Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are the graving docks still active?
 * Trafford Park
 * Tidy up some stuff after [nb4] and [35]
 * Grammar: "Close to Manchester and at the end of the canal, Hooley intended to develop the site as an exclusive housing estate..." Needs to be something like: "Hooley intended to develop the site, which was close to Manchester and at the end of the canal, as an exclusive housing estate,..."
 * "came to see" → "saw"?
 * "Within five years Trafford Park, Europe's largest industrial estate, was home to forty firms" Largest in what sense - area, turnover, number of businesses? Was it Europe's largest by 1902? And why "forty" not 40? (also "fifteen" not "15" later?)
 * Other features on the banks
 * Some brief description of the nature and scope of Salford Quays would be helpful
 * Manchester Ship Canal Railway
 * "and connected to" → "and was connected to"? Transitive or intransitive, I dunno.
 * The section seems a bit inconclusive. Does the railway still function? If not, when did it cease? If it is still running, an indication of its current scale of operation would be useful.
 * The railway isn't still functioning. I've added its closure date, which I was surprised to find was only a couple of years ago. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Present day
 * The Panama Canal was completed in 1914, which I think is more than "a few years" after the opening of the Manchester Ship Canal
 * Last line: 8,000 not 8000.
 * The modern mathematical convention, as I learned a little while ago, is not to use delimiters for numbers under 10,000. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That concludes my comments. The article is informative, well-illustrated, and in general clearly written. After a little further work this will make a fine FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the effort you've put into this review Brian, it's much appreciated. I'll try and address all your outstanding points over the next day or so. Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)