Talk:Bridgewater Canal/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting GAR.Pyrotec (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

GAR

Having read it through, the article is unquestionably of GA quality, however there is a problem with the WP:Lead. The Lead is intended to be a summary of what is in the article, and should not contain in-line citations and material that does not appear elsewhere in the article. The final two paragraphs of the Lead fall foul of these guide lines by "summarising" material that does not appear in the body of the article. The three points are:

• first true canal

I have edited this lead text, and expanded upon it in the 'current status' section. Other editors may seek to expand upon this at some point, as the success of the canal may warrant a section of its own. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• canal mania

 Done see penultimate paragraph of Bridgewater_Canal#Planning.2C_construction_and_early_operation Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Cheshire Ring.

 Done - see Bridgewater_Canal#Current_status Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting the GAR of the article On Hold whilst these are fixed.Pyrotec (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not true that the lead should contain no inline citations, although it is a common misconception. Please see [1]. Neither is it true that information in the lead must be repeated elsewhere in the article. I quote from WP:LEAD: Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only, as may certain quotations" (my emphasis) -Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept your point about the inline citations "misconception, but I'm going to argue the other point as bit more. The lead to WP:Lead cautions about "teasing" the reader, I'm citing that in respect of the first true canal and the canal mania; but you can have Cheshire Ring.Pyrotec (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Working on the above now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

All done. Please let me know if you feel anything else needs doing. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

GAR

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I suggest that this article should be considered for WP:FAC

Congratulations, you have GA.Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)