Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:20, 30 September 2008 [1].

Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal

edit
Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom (talk)
previous FAC (19:08, 7 September 2008)


I'm nominating this article for a second time because I believe it gives the reader an excellent impression of the history, planning, construction, use, demise and restoration of the canal. I have used authoritative sources both in print and online format, and have tried to be as balanced and informative as I possibly can be, without going into too much detail. I have addressed all the issues revealed in the first nomination. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image check
Other then that, all sources, licenses, descriptions look good. As a small comment, be consistent with tenses, e.g. The Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal is a disused canal...The canal was... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikepie2221 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 20 September 2008Fixed. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed that licence. Tense - The canal 'was' a certain length, but is 'now' a different length as parts are infilled/demolished. As more is restored, it will become longer but there are sections that are impossible to restore so it will always be 'was x miles long' and 'is now x-y miles long'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the other out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could consider re-wording "The canal is currently navigable as far as East Ordsall Lane, in Salford." along the lines of "as of such-and-such date" or "by such-and-such date" rather than "currently". Same applies to "Current status", which could be renamed "Status as of 2008".
I'm very much on top of what is happening on the canal and update things regularly. As information becomes outdated I can change the tense. I'd very much prefer to keep things the way they currently are in that respect. Things aren't happening all that quickly, it will likely be a few years before another section becomes navigable. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see the rationale for the sequence in the list of notable subscribers. Is it possible to arrange this by value?
The names are currently in order as they appeared on the original document - I'd rather not re-arrange them as this may distort an aspect of how and when certain people subscribed to the scheme, but I will insert a reference explaining this if acceptable? Please let me know what you think. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted such a reference, found on the header of the table concerned. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph on the report entitled "A Statement of the Situation", can the dimensions/measurements be standardised the same as the rest of the article (so "5 feet (1.5 m) (" instead of "five feet")?
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original was a seal, which of course would be monochrome. I'm unsure what the usual practice is here but the lettering is a little difficult to read in monochrome. Would it be acceptable to include a short note explaining this, in the image description (when clicked)? Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought you're quite right - I'll change it tomorrow morning Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks! DrKiernan (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • In lead, "The canal was <distance> long, and its entrance is... " sounds really odd. Some kind of qualification is needed after 'long', such as "when fully open" or "when operating commercially", plus some indication of why it is no longer that length and/or what it is now, eg "but sections have fallen into disuse since closure". Also, moving "its entrance is..." to a separate sentence will lessen the force of the collision between the tenses.
I've made some changes, see what you think. The only bit I struggled with was 'officially abandoned in 1961' - I wanted to include 'in its entirety' but felt that it would be harder to read. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revised text is much better, although others may be able to refine it further. 'In its entirety' is not needed, as the present text does not, to me, imply that only parts of the canal were abandoned. EdJogg (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having 'Canal Committee' as a sub-heading breaks-up the section in a strange way. If the committee members were noted in a table, as for the subscribers -- with 'Canal Committee' becoming the table title rather than a heading -- it would not matter that there are no further headings before 'Traffic'. As it currently stands, however, all details of the construction are part of the section labelled "Canal Committee". An alternative would be to add another heading (such as "Construction") further down, but it is not clear to me where this would be best placed.
have removed that heading - it was a left over part of an older revision Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article ought to explain why there is no comma in the title! (Required, after 'Manchester', surely??)
Discussed in the talk page, the name of the canal never seems to be consistent - throughout history in many articles and books it has different names. The canal society is most knowledgeable on this, and one of the most authoritative books on the canal (V I Tomlinson) also calls it 'manchester bolton & bury', so that's what we settled on :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the canal had multiple names, there is justification in including a section that covers this -- and then you can mention why there's no comma! The talk page mainly covers the use of '&' vs 'and'; commas were not (until now) mentioned. EdJogg (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly do that, but I'm rather at a loss on where in the article to put such information... :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there's enough bulk it could have its own section (before 'Breaches'?), otherwise I would suggest you integrate it into the existing history. At the same time you could check that all the names are adequately referenced. (I'm not trying to being awkward, but, for example, the 'seal' image clearly shows "Manchester, Bolton and Bury......" EdJogg (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there is enough information to write anything meaningful really. All I'd be able to add is that 'x book calls it this', 'y book calls it that'...they're all just variations on a theme. Most of the older books call it 'manchester, bolton and bury canal' which was the original title of the article, however the railway is called 'manchester, bolton & bury...', the society is 'manchester bolton & bury', locally its known as the 'bolton canal' or 'bury canal' or 'bury-bolton canal' (nobody ever really mentions the salford arm). I could write something but I don't feel it would add much to the article, as I don't know (and I'm reasonably sure that nobody else really knows) why it's name has changed. Even the names of the features change, 'nob end locks' is sometimes called 'prestolee locks', 'hall lane aqueduct' was originally 'farnworth aqueduct' - all these are fact, but why, I can't explain as I've found nothing anywhere which attempts to. What I do know is that more knowledgeable members of the society (Paul Hindle for instance) recommend the current name, and also the VI Tomlinson book (which uses 'and' rather than '&'), which is far more detailed than any other source. Perhaps I should just insert a <ref>...name subject to variations...</ref> somewhere in the lead, and hope to expand upon it later? Another complication is that 'Manchester' is actually 'Salford'! Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Will continue proof-reading in due course - only reached 'Transport' so far...)
    EdJogg (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, pending full review (what's eerie is that this shot of the canal looks almost identical to a portion of the C&O Canal, but I digress):
    • Forgive my ignorance, but what the hell is a furlong, and wouldn't it make more sense to just use feet?
Originally the furlong was wikilinked, but then I inserted it into a convert template and I do not know how to wikilink it within that template. I used furlong because that was the original design specification of the canal at the time of construction, and it's use should definitely be kept. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you just hand-paste the conversion and wikilink without the template, then?
Wikipedia:Mos#Conversions says nothing about mandatory use of the template, so I've done just what you suggest. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "to climb to the summit" - if it's climbing a summit, that suggests a mountain of some sort. Can't you just say to get over the elevation changer or summat'?
a summit can mean several things, not just a mountain, in this instance the summit is Route summit so I have now wikilinked that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if this is possible at all, but could we get monetary exchange for the pounds? It might be infeasible, I just get tired of reading history books talking about sums in pounds and me not knowing jack about whether it's a lot or a little :/
I don't know what the rules say about this. I have no problem with it, but it is very obviously a British article so uk sterling should be expected. I have wikilinked the first instance of the '£' sign. Another issue is that of history - to correctly translate the value, I would need to know the exchange rate of the currencies at the time of expenditure, or I'm not sure it would make any sense as I suspect that the dollar at the time may have been much weaker than the pound - although that is a guess.
Eh, scratch it, I really don't want to make you go through the hassle of trying to find conversions.
    • Personal preference again, but {{Infobox Canal}} wastes a tremendous amount of space listing construction start/stop dates seperately, et al. Could that stuff be merged to a single line?
Its a Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways feature which is slowly being introduced to all UK canal articles, its designed to quickly list the major technical aspects of each canal. Its a new design only a few weeks old, if others agree I have no issue deleting some of the text - but you should be aware that on the last FAC review I was asked to expand upon this very information. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I am a tad sensitive about "infobox cruft", but my complain isn't with the info as much as the presentation.Date Completed and date of first use, for example, could just be made into 'Years of operation', and the names could be shortened to avoid whitespace; for example 'Completion' instead of 'Date completed'.
I'll have a play around with this tomorrow and see what I can do to reduce the space used. Its tricky because the entirety of the canal did not close at the same time - it closed in stages, so years of operation would be too ambiguous. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does this look? Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better. I doubt I will ever be happy with it :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A combination of factors, including financial unrest and war," and "including the end of the American Revolutionary War,"... this part needs to be spelt out. When you first talk about war, I was thinking domestically. Perhaps say foreign war so we know why a conflict on the other side of the ocean affected a british canal?
I'm not sure it was a 'foreign' war. It was a war in which the British were involved - I don't know the definitions in that respect. American_Revolutionary_War#Financial_costs gives details of the financial issues at the time. I have edited this paragraph to help. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "For local industries along the route of the proposed canal that relied on water" It's hinted at, but never stated, that these people were afraid that their small running water supplies would be drawn dry by the canal, correct? Can you say that in prose?
Certainly, done. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some slight grammar stuff, check to make sure I didn't change any meaning.
I modified 'might tap' to 'might also use' Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "on 26 July, 27 July, 28 July, and 29 July" - just say "took place between 26 July and 29 July"?
I think that would make it more ambiguous, unless it read "took place on each day between the dates of 26 July and 29 July" - I think to list each date separately works better, but am happy to see what others think about this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "contained several boxes filled with coal" no need of the 'several' language, just state how many there were if possible or just axe it entirely.
I have replaced 'several' with 'rows of' Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "so an icebreaker was used to break up the ice" well that just sounds like it's tripping over itself.
I have reworded this accordingly Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "was ordered piped by the Ministry of Transport to reduce the risk of bomb damage to the canal" huh? bomb damage? you mean German bombs or what?
I have inserted 'WW2' Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the news item in "Breaches" so important to be quoted in its entirety?
The 1936 breach is, besides the closure of the mines around the canal, the event that most affected the ability of the canal to make a profit. It is a massive landslip (it has to be seen to be believed) and a significant barrier to restoration. It was a reasonable size story at the time, reported both locally and nationally, and I feel that the history of the canal hinges on this single event, which basically cut all three arms away from oneanother. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have gone through and struck what has been resolved. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that takes care of my concerns. Just try and make the infobox smaller if you can :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you're happy with the changes :) I will have a look at the box tomorrow. Its been a 16 hour day at work and my bed calls... Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Manchester_Bolton_%26_Bury_Canal&oldid=1142602727"