Talk:Stainforth and Keadby Canal/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 02:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can do this GA review. Please indicate here if you are still interested. --Noleander (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am still keen for the article to be reviewed. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wording: "so that stators from Keadby Power Station could be taken away for repairs, ..." - Maybe "so that stators from the nearby KPS could be transported for repairs .."?

Clarify: "Development: In 1828, there was a proposal to build a canal from West Stockwith on the River Trent to the River Don at Doncaster, ..." - I'm a bit confused: the canal was opened in the prior section in 1802 ... what is this new canal? How does it relate to the 1802 canal?

Not sure how to resolve this. The end of the sentence already says that it would have bypassed the Stainforth and Keadby.

Clarify: "Traffic held up surprising well, with the waterways carrying a .." - why is that surprising?

Done It was surprising because most railway takeovers resulted in serious decline. Reworked to explain the situation without using "surprising".

Clarify: "Negotiations with the railway company were long and bitter, and the Navigation company only managed to raise £625,000 of the £1.14 million purchase price, with the result that although they owned the waterways, the railway company still nominated five of the ten directors .." - ?? so the new canal company was or was not able to buy the canals from the RR company? What did they get for the 625K?

Done They got ownership, but not freedom from railway control. Wording expanded a little to clarify.

Which? - "After the Second World War, the canals were ..." - all canals in UK? or just the canals in the article?

Chronological order: "nationalised on 1 January 1948. The winter was particularly severe, and the Stainforth and Keadby was closed for a period in late 1947 du.." - 1948 event should not be before 1947.

History section wrap-up: at end of "Development" subsection: should have a brief summary of the current 21st century situation: canal is still in use and blah blah ...

Wording: "(although the spelling is not quite the same)." - Could be clearer; maybe "although the spelling of some of the road names is not consistent with conventional shipyard terminology" or similar. Also, no need for parenthesis.

External links? - If there are any useful External links readers may benefit from, consider putting them at bottom of article.

Link? - "grade II" - not sure what that is, so link to some article that defines that term.

Done although grade II listed links to the same article as grade II* listed.

Not done There is no separate article on the church, and Kirk Bramwith is already linked in the previous sentence.

Route overview: - Perhaps start Route section with a brief pagraph giving an overview of the route: N-S? E-W? total Length? Total elevation drop? Straight? curvy?

Done Brief introduction added, although drops at locks do not appear to be published.

That's all I can find. If you can address the couple of remaining issues (except the ones you mark "not done", I believe you'll have achieved GA status. --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is everything, apart from the 1828 bypass canal comment. I'm not sure what is not clear. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine ... I've re-read it and it looks okay. --Noleander (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]