- 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 Ucucha 14:14, 1 October 2011 [1].
Manchester Ship Canal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum, Parrot of Doom 22:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a work in progress for what seems like forever. It's a major feat of Victorian engineering and still one of the largest ship canals in the world, just a little shorter than the Panama Canal completed 20 years later. The article went through a very helpful peer review at the beginning of August and has been further expanded since then. I think this is a comprehensive and accurate account of the Manchester Ship Canal, its history, and its future. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where explanatory notes are placed in the same spot as citations, can we be consistent in which comes first?
- I'm not sure what you mean.
- Fixed. All explanatory notes now listed after any citations. Malleus Fatuorum 10:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Include both authors for Willan citations? Also, is it 1997 or 1977?
- Kinders or Kindersley?
- Don't include harvlink parameter in Further reading
- I'm not sure what you mean.
- What is "7 Geo. I c.15"?
- That is a standard method of referring to an Act of Parliament. Seventh year of George I's reign, chapter 15.
- Need page numbers for magazine articles without weblinks
- FN 69: page(s)?
- FN 73: publisher, page(s)?
- Be consistent in whether URL names are capitalized or not, and in whether they include "www." or not
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
- Having seen the locomotive for myself I'm sure the information is accurate, but equally I accept that web site isn't sufficiently authoritative for our needs so I've removed it and the sentence it was sourcing. Malleus Fatuorum 11:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 94: is that really the title?
- In general, citations to multi-page PDF sources should include page numbers
- Publisher for Parkinson-Bailey? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I gave this a good going-over at peer review. It's a very detailed and interesting history of this important waterway, and assuming that nothing untoward arises during the image review I am happy to support its promotion. My one prose quibble: a new paragraph should not begin with a personal pronoun, as in the lead ("They therefore initiated a public campaign..." etc). Personally I would resolve this by combining the second and third paragraphs. I do not consider the point vital, however. Brianboulton (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you about the personal pronoun, so I've reorganised the second and third paragraphs of the lead slightly. Thanks very much for your support and of course for your invaluable help at the peer review. Malleus Fatuorum 14:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments There seems to be a slight overlap between the sections Financing and Construction. Also, how many railways were (are) there between Liverpool and Manchester, 3 or 4? The article says there were three. Liverpool to Manchester Lines names four. Which is correct? --John (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't write the section on railways but my understanding is that a "Liverpool to Manchester Railway" is a railway line built specifically to directly link the two cities. I wouldn't class the Bury to Liverpool Railway as one of those, considering that the connection between Bury and Manchester was convoluted to say the least. The other route, via Ditton Junction and over the now disused Latchford Viaduct, was along the Warrington and Altrincham Junction Railway. Given the acrimonous nature of the relationship between the railways and the ship canal company (although the CLC appears to have been somewhat less fussy that its rivals), I'd venture the opinion that all the railways were against the canal, and that it would be simpler just to substitute any number with "railways". Parrot of Doom 15:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good solution, done. --John (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've checked the source again and it definitely says three railways linking Liverpool and Manchester, not four. I guess though it depends on how you count them, as PoD suggests. The route via Ditton junction was served by two separate railways – the Warrington and Altrincham and St. Helens and Runcorn Gap railways, one from Liverpool and the other to Manchester – therefore wasn't a direct route. You could equally travel from Liverpool to Manchester via London. Probably best to avoid the issue in this article though by dropping the number. Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the complicated nature of the financing, particularly Manchester Corporation having to step in when the construction money ran out, makes a slight degree of overlap difficult to avoid. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to have one last look through before I support. It is looking great though, good work. --John (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reason for the link from a ship to a shipping company in the lead image? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That the company owns the ship I guess was the reason, but I take your point and I've removed the link. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support. Am about half ways through, but not finished, the page, and have had to make v light copy edits only. The breath of research is impressive, and I did a few google checks to verify; all seems ok. I dont like ref templates, and tend to ignore them when they appear so no cmt there. But th writing is clear, the sources strong and varied. As a pet peeve I would remove the see also section, but that would just because I'm a grumpy near codger, its not a demand. Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC) Support on breath of sources, comprhensiveness and that its well written. I can see bits and pieces that could be reworded, but they are minor and can sort them out myself. I think this is a fine and broadly sourced article which grips the reader from the start, and carrys him/her along. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ceoil. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Although not an expert on canals (or Manchester) by a long stretch, I have read this a couple of times and cannot find much wrong with it. I can only really comment on prose, as I wouldn't know if it was comprehensive or not, but it is an excellent piece of work. Just two queries, which do not affect my support in any way, and feel free to ignore them. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"direct access to the sea for its imports and its exports of manufactured goods": Would it be better phrased as "…for the import and export of manufactured goods"? It is fairly clear it refers to Manchester.- "With the city about 60 feet above sea level, the docks and quays would therefore have been well below the surrounding surface.": In Manchester? Just checking as it seems an extraordinary idea to have what would amount to a large pit in the city. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. I don't think "import and export of manufactured goods" quite works, as the major imports were raw materials like cotton, not manufactured goods. And yes, without the locks Manchester Docks would have been 60 feet below the level of the surrounding land. Malleus Fatuorum 15:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, struck first comment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for an image review. Karanacs (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:BridgewaterCanalCheque.png: though this image was included in Leech's book, he didn't write the cheque. Do we know who did? If not, suggest using the pre-1923 licensing tag instead.
- Not sure who wrote the cheque, so I've nominated the Commons image for deletion and uploaded a version to Wikipedia with a pre-1923 licence as you suggest, which the article is now using. Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Daniel_Adamson.jpg: dates of death for authors?
- File:Ship_canal_map.png: on what source(s) or data set was this image based?
- I created it myself using a range of maps. It overlays almost perfectly on out-of-copyright OS maps (50 year limit on UK OS maps, all the infrastructure was there well before then). Parrot of Doom 15:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is going to be really annoying to try to address, but what's the source for the icons used in the "Manchester Ship Canal map"? Is there a book or site that lists all of these icons? Obviously they're not copyrighted, but are they accurate? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean the details included in the map, or the source of each individual graphic? Parrot of Doom 15:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, both, but my immediate question related to the individual graphics as shown here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can look at a map of the canal and note the locations of various features, the names of viaducts and other bits of infrastructure are all common knowledge. The names of older, disused side locks can be found on various OS maps. As for the graphics, visually they're not exactly the same as features on the canal, the map is just so people can get an idea of what is where, and see how everything links up. A bit like the London Underground map. Parrot of Doom 16:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what we're being asked to do here. The graphics are the standard ones that appear on all canal articles. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Spotchecks: I checked footnotes 26, 37, 70, 108 and 114 (of this version). In every case, the article's claims were fully backed up by the cited sources, and I detected no plagiarism or close paraphrasing issues. – Quadell (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the prose again for issues like these, and for easter egg links such as [[anoxic waters|summer months]]. Ucucha (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Easter egg has been consumed, and very tasty it was too. I've had another look through the whole article and I can't see any other problems such as you found. Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.