Talk:River Don Navigation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• "The navigation and river are crossed by a large variety of bridges, ranging for a medieval bridge complete with a chapel on it ...". A variety can't be "large", and "ranging for" can't be right either. Do you mean a wide variety of bridges or a large number of bridges? From the following sentence I suspect the former.

• Gone for wide variety. Should have been "ranging from". "Ranging" deleted.

• Most use of the navigation is now by leisure boaters ...". Later in the article "navigation" starts to become capitalised as in "This bridge provides access across the Navigation from the centre of Doncaster ..." from the Friars Gate Bridge section. You could reasonably argue for either, although my preference would be not to capitalise, but it needs to be consistent.

• Now consistent, I think.

Early history

• "... barges of up to 30 tons could normally reach Fishlake". The article starts off by using imperial measurements, but later switches to metric, as in "In 1972, a further proposal for a £2 million scheme to upgrade the waterway to handle 700-tonne barges" from the Later developments section. Needs to be consistent.

• Not entirely convinced. The 30 tons was in 1688, when the tonne had not even been invented. The 700 tonnes is a european standard size for barges. Tons and tonnes are so close that conversion usually implies an accuracy that the sources do not warrant. So 30 tons (30 tonnes) looks silly, and 690-ton (700-tonne) makes no sense, as there is no 690-ton Eurobarge standard (and convert insists on calling them long tons).

• Whether or not the tonne had been invented is irrelevant. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Tonnes now used throughout.

• "... resulted in another attempt to obtain powers for the lower river being made in 1737". That doesn't really make sense.

• Reworded, so it is clearer.

Expansion

• "Three-quarters of the cost had been raised by 1903,[16] and the new canal leaves the original navigation at Bramwith Junction ...". These two things have nothing to do with each other, and therefore the sentence should be split.

• Sentence split.

• "... and Doncaster lock was lengthened in 1909 and 1910", Is this Doncaster Town Lock?

• Now it is Doncaster Town Lock.

Later developments

• "... as Doncaster lock above it ...". I don't see a Doncaster Lock on the graphic; should this be Doncaster Town lock?

• Now it is Doncaster Town Lock.

Route

• The first half of the first paragraph is apparently source to the Five Weirs Walk web site, which doesn't seem to support anything that's written.

• Part now sourced to OS map, and Five Weirs Walk ref altered to point to a more appropriate page.

• "Sprotborough lock and weir are situated just before Sprotborough, but soon the edge of Doncaster is reached. Here amongst the railway marshalling yards, the River Don leaves the navigation for the final time, as does the towpath. The two weir streams flow either side of Doncaster prison, effectively forming an island on which the building sits. Doncaster Town Lock is situated close to Doncaster railway station, and between here and Long Sandall Lock, some of the changes which have occurred over the years can be visualised, with the river on the left and ox-bow lakes on the right, severed by the course of the Wheatley Cut. The final section to Bramwith is usually called the River Dun Navigation. At Bramwith, the waterway splits, with the New Junction Canal heading north-east for the Aire and Calder Navigation and Goole, and the Stainforth and Keadby Canal heading east to the River Trent at Keadby. The River Don heads northwards too, turning to the east where the Dutch River starts at Newbridge. The original course to the River Aire can be traced across the fields, now little more than a drainage ditch crossed by an oversized Grade II listed bridge on the A1041 at East Cowick ...". All of this is sourced to the Images of England web site's description of Turn Bridge here, which mentions none of it.

• There isn't an obvious way to say that a ref only refers to the last bit of a paragraph. I have fixed it by sourcing the first bit to the 1:50000 Ordnance Survey map.

• "The entire second paragraph is sourced to a dead link on the Dearn Way Footpath.

• ref changed to use OS map

Bridge Street Bridge and Chantry Chapel

• Significant parts of this section are way too close to the sources for comfort, and the entire section probably needs to be rewritten.

The article says:

"The old bridge stands next to its 20th-century successor at an important crossing point on the River Don."

The source says:

"The old bridge stands next to its 20th Century successor at an important crossing point on the River Don".

The article says:

"The bridge was widened, and a fifth arch added, in 1768, but by the beginning of the 20th century its days were numbered, and in 1930 a new bridge was built a little way upstream. As part of the work the old bridge was restored to its Medieval dimensions, and the fifth arch removed. Because of diversions of the river in the 18th and 19th centuries, the bridge no longer reaches the Masbrough (west) bank."

The source says:

"The bridge was widened, and a fifth arch added, in 1768, but by the beginning of the 20th Century its days were numbered, and in 1930 a new bridge was built a little way upstream. As part of the work the old bridge was restored to its Medieval dimensions, and the fifth arch removed ... Because of diversions of the river in the 18th and 19th Centuries, the bridge no longer reaches the Masbrough bank.

• Section reworked.

Warmsworth railway viaducts

• "The steel pillars supporting the viaduct are filled with limestone. Its construction, which uses an above-deck truss, contrasts with the eastern viaduct, which uses a below-deck truss. This was completed in 1910 ...". I think this may be losing its way a bit. What is the "this" that starts the third sentence referring to? It looks like it's referring back to the truss, is that what's meant?

• Reworded to clarify meaning.

Newtons Farm footbridge

• Shouldn't this be "Newtons Farm Footbridge"? Same goes for "Rotherham weir", "Interchange footbridge", "Ford Island footbridge" ... basically the capitalisation needs to be checked and consistent throughout the article.

• I think these are now all consistent.

• "In the photo opposite, some of the debris from the flooding in June 2007 can be seen to the left of the wooden part of the bridge." I'm unhappy about referring to the positioning of images in the text like that for two reasons. First of all the photo isn't opposite, it's to the left of the text. Secondly there's no way of being certain where the photo will be rendered, or even if it will be displayed at all, as readers may choose not to display images or be using a screen reader. I also think that the description of the debris ought to be moved to the image caption.

• Description of debris moved to image caption.

Railway Bridges

• Why isn't this section called "Railway bridges"? Is there a place or a structure known as Railway Bridges?

• Section renamed.

Chappell Drive bridge

• Why isn't this section called "Chappell Drive Bridge"?

• Section renamed.

References

• There are two dead links.[1]

• One fixed, the other replaced

Bibliography

• It would make it easier to find the relevant sources if they were listed in last-name first-name order.

• Personally, although it might be marginally easier to find the relevant sources, I dislike referring to authors as Hadfield, Charles for instance, when the book itself clearly calls him Charles Hadfield. The cite template allows names to be entered like this, and I have at least been consistent in that all of the cites use the same format. This is the first time that it has been suggested that the order should be swapped, and so I think it is a preference. I would rather not change the style, as I would probably only end up changing it back later to retain consistency with other articles. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I don't like the style, but as it's not a part of the GA criteria then I certainly won't insist that you change it. Malleus Fatuorum 21:52, 15 May 2011 (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.