Talk:Sleaford Navigation/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to review this one. I'll do a close readthrough of the article's text today and/or tomorrow, noting any initial problems I encounter; then we'll move on to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

First readthrough

This looks like strong work, and I don't see many problems here that will need to be addressed. A few points below need clarification or modification:

• "the committee persisted" -- what committee?

•  Done committee introduced.

• "Sir Joseph Banks" -- is it possible to give just a touch of context on who he is beyond his name?

•  Done Details found in Australian Dictionary of Biography.

• " it did not actually close until 14 May 1881" -- unclear pronoun. The Act? The company? The navigation?

•  Done Clarified, as the company and the navigation ceased on that date.

• "the Navigation Society was wound up" -- avoid idiom here per WP:WTA

•  Done Not convinced this is idiom, since the Liquidation article also uses the term, but changed to "disbanded".

• "They have continued to work " -- unclear pronoun-- the Trust, the Society, or both together?

   Done It was the Trust.

• "Funding for the restoration of the warehouse and the former offices of the canal company was organised by the local council in 2002, and a further study which looked at how to provide an adequate water supply for a re-opened canal was funded by Lincolnshire County Council." -- rewrite to avoid the two uses of passive voice

•  Done Re-written to use active voice.

• "which is the current limit of navigation" -- modify per WP:RELTIME (probably use "the limit as of [date]")

•  Done Changed to "has been the limit of navigation since 1986".

-- Khazar2 (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. I am only the Nominator, not the principle editor. I've passed your notes to User:Bob1960evens (talk)
--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that I have now addressed all issues raised. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. I'll start the checklist in a moment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is excellent, and spot checks of available sources show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are well-selected, and incidentally quite lovely
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass--nice work.