Template:Did you know nominations/Sydney Gardens Tunnels
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sydney Gardens Tunnels
- ... that contrary to common belief, a hatch in the roof of the Cleveland Tunnel (pictured) wasn't used to pass paperwork between canal boats and office workers, but was probably for waste disposal? NHLE: "and with refuse shoot running down to canal through hole in the tunnel roof (the legend that this is for passing messages to passing barges is erroneous)"; Batsford (1980) shows that it is/was common belief ("a persistent legend...")
Created by MIDI (talk). Self-nominated at 11:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC).
- Comment re: @Mandarax:'s edit: I'd gladly reword hook or article appropriately. "Barge", although used in the source, ought to be avoided as it is a misleading term; there is a common misconception—certainly in the UK—that any canal boat is a barge and that barges are narrowboats (we boat folk get quite het up about this!), and therefore we'd best avoid propagating this if at all possible. "Canal boat" is a neutral term that covers any sort of vessel on the waterway and should be compatible in this instance. While not ideal, perhaps a disambiguation to List of the types of canal craft in the United Kingdom would work instead? MIDI (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I thought "barge" was the closest disambiguation for "canal boat", especially since that's what the source uses, but I've changed it per your suggestion (although it may be better to just unlink it). Feel free to make any desired changes yourself. I would prefer that the hook and article use the same term (canal boats or vessels), but I'll leave that for you and the reviewer to decide. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
The article was new enough to mainspace when nominated and is long enough (~2500 characters). The article's claims are supported by inline citations to suitable sources (AGF on offline sources). The subject matter is treated in an appropriately neutral manner, not e.g. peacocking or overselling the site's importance. I'm not seeing any signs of plagiarism of online material. The hook is cited and supported and interesting enough. The image proposed has a suitable license, is used in the article, and is clear enough at DYK resolution. The nominator completed a QPQ review.
A few notes: The online sources refer to both tunnels as the "Kennet and Avon Canal Tunnel", so that name should probably be mentioned in the lead, unless there's a good reason for not doing so. Are "No.1" and "No. 2" some sort of standard official names of the two tunnels? None of the online sources I see refer to them by those names; and, while we're on the subject, none of them uses the name "Sydney Gardens Tunnels" to refer to the tunnels collectively. Where did these names come from? The link to Pulteney (surname) leads to a disambiguation page; either the author should decide which page that wikilink actually ought to point to (I can't tell), or the link should be removed. I have no strong feelings about where the link "canal boats" in the hook should point; if the author can tell what sort of boat was likeliest to run on this canal and there's an article about that sort, then probably that's the place.
All my notes have been resolved, and this now looks ready to run. Thanks! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Bryanrutherford0:. Been largely off the radar for a few days but will see to this soon—sounds relatively doable! MIDI (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Bryanrutherford0:—hopefully resolved now. Ref provided to show that "No.1" and "No.2" are official (but not necessarily commonly-used) names, in use by the Canal and River Trust who are the authority over this canal. I've also added two sources to show that "Sydney Gardens Tunnels" is in use as a phrase (as opposed to "Sydney Gardens tunnels", which is just a descriptor for some tunnels in Sydney Gardens). I have reworded the sentence with the Pulteney link to avoid the awkward link to a DAB page. The use of the term "canal boats" is neutral and does not contradict any sources; it is a generic term that will cover any vessels on the British waterway system (whether they be a narrowboat, barge etc.) and our closest appropriate article is the one currently linked. If that's seen as an iffy link then I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world to leave the link out altogether. MIDI (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)