Talk:Purton Hulks

History section

How are the first two paragraphs of the section relevant to this article? They are the subject of other, linked, articles. We should not need to cover all the geography and history of the river and canal in this article - only the story behind the hulks themselves. That is why we have links. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it is important to give context (for the reader who may not know the area) showing why the bank collapse was so significant and led to the call to beach the hulks at the site. The size of the Severn and the commercial importance (at the time) of the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal are key to understanding the article in my opinion. If you would like to edit the section (or anything else) that would be great.— Rod ^talk 08:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler just to explain the location of the hulks in relation to the river and the canal - that is, just upstream of Sheerness? The article doesn't seem to make that clear. Re editing the article - once someone nominates an article for DYK/GA/FA, I personally want nothing to do with it, and stay well away! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted to revise it taking into account your comments. I find nomination at DYK/GA/FA is a good way to get others involved to improve the article.— Rod ^talk 08:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

My experience is quite the reverse I'm afraid! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you get bl**dy IPs turning up and interfering, the b*st*rds, oh wait, what ... ? <g> Best wishes to all 82.36.105.25 (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Description of Dispatch

The interesting aside on shipbuilding methods is too long for a table cell. Belongs in a subsection or a footnote to the table. Wire723 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley added this making the case that "The Fell's Patent Knees on the iron/wood composite hull of Dispatch are worth a note too".— Rod ^talk 09:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Just delete it. I know presentation always matters more than content does. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions

• Crop the image from across the Severn, so as to remove the nearby wall.

• I've had a go at this (and adjusted the brightness slightly).— Rod ^talk 07:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Merge across rows for the equivalent types (the FCBs)

• I'm working on a dodgy wifi connection with a small screen laptop at present, so can't look at how to do this - if you know please do it. It also shows up the table problem with the long description of Dispatch which might be improved by narrowing some of the other table columns or we could move the detail into the text above the table?— Rod ^talk 07:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Change the "concrete ship" description for the FCBs. These aren't ships, they weren't built like ships. They aren't the pre-fab Marley panel-built barges that are at Rainham, but they were built quickly and simply as monocoques. Their structure and reinforcement are some away from the large concrete ships that were built.

• As the expert here could you make the change?— Rod ^talk 07:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Your Marley link took me to Bob Marley (no bad thing) & looking at Marley (disambiguation) I'm not seeing a link to a type of vessel/construction technique.— Rod ^talk 18:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• No, you won't. Although surprisingly I can't see a better link either. It's the well-known building construction firm, probably best known today for plastic gutters and sectional garages. The need was to have non-boatyards assist in the urgent need for boatbuilding. Marley knew about pre-fabricated concrete panel construction. The concrete barges beached at Rainham marshes were built by Marley. I know little as yet about the Purton barges. They were built by Wates, now the Wates Group, another concrete building firm from the 1930s. Wates were also involved in the Mulberry Harbours. The Marley barges were pre-cast as panels, the Wates barges as moncoques.

Another unrelated bunch are the half dozen large Creterock barges built up the canal at Hempsted in 1919. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well done!

It's just brilliant that this fascinating topic now has its own article! Well done, people. Best wishes 82.36.105.25 (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Images

Can the captions for the images of the individual hulks give the names of the ships shown? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I have included the ones in the table, if you hover your mouse over the image it will show. If you are referring to the first few accompanying the text I am unsure which FCB or wooden barge is shown.— Rod ^talk 18:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Some non-hulk vessels?

Are the following "Purton hulks" for our purposes here?

• Severn King The old ferry, damaged during scrapping work on the railway bridge, grounded and later scrapped at Sharpness. As it was cut up entirely, nothing remains. "Local shipwrecks" is a huge list.
• The railway bridge accident barges, Arkendale H and Wastdale H. These were accidentally damaged and sank. They're in the main river, not the banks, and they sank there rather than being deliberately hulked as erosion defences. However they are visible wrecks at Purton.

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Do we have a definition of "Hulk" v "Wreck" or similar? As they are included in the list of vessels given by the "Friends of Purton" I included them but open to discussion.— Rod ^talk 18:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Not that I actually know anything, but my feeling is that the three vessels about which Andy asks should be removed or at least footnoted somehow as "other interesting local stuff". They really do not meet our definition of the PH as given in the very first sentence, and I think that's quite important. The fact that Paul B's site mentions them I think is perhaps slightly different, in that we are an encyclopaedia and he isn't, so he would quite rightly be concerned about omitting material which is in some way relevant to his chosen topic, whereas we don't have this constraint and can be a bit more blase about thinking we've probably got it covered elsewhere or can or should. Does this make sense?? Cheers 82.36.105.25 (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking again at this (although I'm not sure I agree with the "comprehensiveness" comment), I agree they could be removed from the table, but think there should still be mention of them. Although"Arkendale H and Wastdale H" were not "deliberately beached" but they are in the same area and could be dealt with as a footnote. Severn King was deliberately beached before being cut up for scrap. Little remains of some of the others following scrap metal hunters, fires etc so maybe we could agree some clear inclusion and exclusion criteria?— Rod ^talk 18:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Ise or Ize

At the moment the article has both "-ize" and "-ise" spellings and is voting 2-1 in favour of "-ise". I'm personally very fond of "-ize" in BrE spellings (isn't this EngVarB or Oxford or something??) but it's probably more important that we make it consistent one way or the other and tag it as whatever we have chosen. But what do you think? Cheers 82.36.105.25 (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I only found one occurrence of "ize" (which was probably my error) & 4 of "ise" so I have standardised on "ise" as British English which definitely applies to a UK topic.— Rod ^talk 17:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry: I just made it 2 x "ise" - motorise and authorise. But I may have miscounted and it is perfectly fine how it is now, and probably not worth starting an actual fist fight over. While I'm at it, I don't, just for the record, agree that only "ise" is BrE - I see "ize" as a perfectly legit alternative BrE spelling. Of course I want the article in BrE but my question, if you like, was "which variant?" not "which country?" But, as I say, I am happy that it's consistent, and ize was in any case outvoted! Cheers 82.36.105.25 (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've tried, and failed, to determine the coordinates of the individual vessels. If anyone can do so, please enter them in the column I added. I also included some example code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If we can't do this in a few days would it be best to remove the empty column?— Rod ^talk 19:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No, because that will make it harder for someone who has the coordinates to add them; and would remove the implicit invitation to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As there are no coordinates in the table, then remove the column (or hide it). Anyone with the ability to capture this many coordinates is going to be able to re-add it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

OK in the light of the fact it was still unused a year later I have removed it. As Andy says it can always be re-added if anyone has the coords.— Rod ^talk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Purton Hulks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jackdude101 (talk · contribs) 21:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: no cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 21:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Sticks to the well-sourced facts.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Besides minor things like alphabetizing the Bibliography section and the category links at the bottom, everything in the External links section, except for the "Friend of Purton" link, should be removed. The BBC link could be kept if it were used as a reference in the article, but the YouTube links definitely need to go. YouTube links and Wikipedia articles go together link vampires and garlic. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 00:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography & Cats now A->Z. YouTube links removed.— Rod ^talk 16:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Several of the rows in the table have no references in them. However, a quick and easy solution for this is to add one single reference next to the title of the table using this link: [1]. Also, you don't need that "List of vessels" sub-header above the table, as it's redundant. The Jordan and Huxley references (Nos. 82 and 83) need page numbers, as well. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 00:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added the general ref as suggested & removed the sub head. I don't have hard copies of either of the books (although an ebook of Huxley is available). I will request them from the library to enable me to add page numbers, however this may take mnore than 7 days and I am going to awy for the next 10 days on a boat with no internet connection - so I will not be able to resolve these within the 7 days - can you give an extension?— Rod ^talk 16:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Rodw: I found a quick and easy solution. In the Friends of Purton reference (No. 82), it more-or-less covers the info in the one sentence referenced by the Huxley and Jordan books. I would suggest adding that reference to that sentence and remove the Huxley and Jordan references, and their entries in the Bibliography section, entirely. Those two books do not reference anything else in the article, so this will not cause any problems. It looks like the Friends of Purton info is slightly different, so the sentence in the article should be changed accordingly, as well. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 19:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I've taken your advice & tweaked text removing Huxley and Jordan. Once I get the books I will see if they have anything additional which is useful.— Rod ^talk 19:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

1. C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Rodw: Once the concerns above are addressed, this article will be set for passing its GA review. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 00:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review complete. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 20:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA

Wow, how great. Congratulations! DBaK (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Purton Hulks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160506050859/http://swag-online.org.uk/purton_hulks_0910.htm to http://www.swag-online.org.uk/purton_hulks_0910.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)