Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/River Parrett/archive2

< 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 Karanacs 13:58, 8 June 2010 [1].

River Parrett edit

River Parrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Pyrotec — Rod talk 20:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The River Parrett is the largest river in Somerset, England. The article covers the rivers course and its significant role in the history of the area, with all significant structures for road and rail crossings and flood prevention described. It also covers the geology and ecology of the river. Since it's previous nomination in January, when it had no support or opposition but several comments, it has undergone major revisions by the nominators and an extended peer review (on the talk page) by Ruhrfisch with copy-editing by Malleus Fatuorum. Jezhotwells and SP-KP also provided significant input with Redrose64 leading a major revision of the referencing format. We now believe that all previously identified issues have been resolved and it meets the FA criteria, Nominated by Pyrotec and — Rod talk 20:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 20:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

media Can we get File:Southlakemoor.jpg put through wp:otrs Fasach Nua (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm afraid I don't understand that one - the image is from Geograph Britain and Ireland & is labelled as being "Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license 2.0" - what else is needed?— Rod talk 20:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The license is fine, however the website is temporal, and there is no guarantee we can confirm copyright in three years time, often we get cc images one week and relabeled non-free the next week. If we have a wp:otrs ticket, we have a permanent record of the image being PD Fasach Nua (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Geograph site FAQ on use clearly sets out the terms, and it has been stable for 5 years. Other images from Geograph are used in this article (& in many of the other FAs listed at Wikipedia:UKGEO#Featured_articles) so I am at a loss as to why particular action is needed for this image (or what you are asking me to do)?— Rod talk 21:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image is correctly licensed and meets FA criteria. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: In general the sources look comprehensive, with just a few issues mainly involving reference formats:-

  • First book listed is Blair, John (ed.) (2007) Author and chapter number missing (see Hollinrake and Rippon entries below)
  • This entry to the whole book appears to be needed for the Hollinrake and Rippon refs but isn't to a specific chapter
  • I have added publisher & ISBN details to the Hollinrake and Rippon entries. The genereal Blair entry is no longer strictly necessary, but I've left it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Costen book lacks publisher location
  • Done
  • Farr book is dated 1954 yet has an ISBN. This suggests that this is a later edition
  • Done
  • Well, I'm using the 1954 edition for my citations and it most definitely does not have an isbn. Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Murless book lacks publisher location
  • Done
  • "Bridgwater and Taunton Canal", - the year (2003) is misplaced
  • I'm not sure how to fix that one but will investigate
It's apparently how the "citation" template organises it when there's no author, so no worries. Brianboulton (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otter book lacks publisher location
  • Done
  • Priestly book lacks publisher location
  • Done
  • Robinson book lacks publisher location
  • Done
  • Formatting of on-line sources: Where the origin is a print sources, e.g. The Independent on Sunday, the source should be italicised, otherwise not. Check 3, 8, 9 and others.
  • For consistency, titles should come before publisher (see 13)
  • 13 fixed I will check for others— Rod talk 10:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 23: Why is this source reliable?
  • It is a book, published in 1857, citation reformatted to online text source. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. 148: Clarification: is this citation to site signboards and to a NT brochure/map? If so, details of the brochure should be given.

  • I've changed this to explain map on display board.— Rod talk 17:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I know it's the stupid template, but I doubt Combwich et al have ever been called "cities" before. Can this be changed without the thing blowing up? Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume this comment relates to the infobox Template:Geobox/type/river & I presume comes from a difference between US English where any small village is a city and UK English which attaches special meaning to "city". I am certainly not able to fiddle with the code which generates the infobox - but would welcome input from those with more expertise.— Rod talk 12:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to villages, if you want it to be something else it should be obvious now where to change that, it can be whatever you want. Kmusser (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - but can it be more than 1 city_type as Bridgwater and Langport are towns & Cannington and Combwich are villages? I tried to change to 2 different types ie city_type=Towns & city_type2=Villages but the template didn't seem to like that.— Rod talk 21:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Geobox|River}}

I have examined the source of {{geobox}}, and also the documentation at Template:Geobox/legend, and it seems that |city_type= may be any value you like, but it's applied to the whole row. Kmusser added |city_type=Villages, |city1_type=Villages, |city2_type=Villages and |city3_type=Villages to the article, but only the first of these is recognised: the other three are not. Thus, you could have either |city_type=Towns or |city_type=Towns and villages. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for investigating. I have changed it to city_type=Town and villages, as the only option which covers all issues.— Rod talk 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both - there is always "settlements" of course. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Article appears to be excellently referenced and satisfies the FAC criteria. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch: As noted above, I did a very detailed peer review on this and made the map in the Geobox, as well as some edits. I find this meets the FAC requirements and also like the group effort that went into improving this. I have a few quibbles / questions that do not detract from my support.*This might be American English vs British English, but isn't "northwest" one word? The Parrett then flows north west for approximately another 10 miles (16 km) to Bridgwater through the Somerset Levels past Aller,...

  • I have asked for expert advice as I believe both are acceptable, but would agree on the need for consistency.— Rod talk 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The River Severn is introduced without proper context in The rate and direction of flow of the Parrett is therefore dependant on the state of the tide on the River Severn. I think the article needs to make clearer the relation of the Severn to the Bristol Channel.
  • I will look for a form of words to clarify.— Rod talk 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the previous sentence explains the Severn Estuary & Bristol Channel (which is previously linked) & clicking on these or River Severn provides more context - I'm not sure quite what else is needed here?— Rod talk 07:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, here are the three sentences in the text now: The lower Parrett has a fall of only 1 foot per mile (0.2 m/km) between Langport and Bridgwater;[3] and it drains into the Bristol Channel. Here, the Severn Estuary has a tidal range of 14 metres (46 ft).[19] The rate and direction of flow of the Parrett is therefore dependant on the state of the tide on the River Severn. Could the second sentence be clearer to those not familiar with the local geography - perhaps something like "To the northeast of the River Parrett's mouth, the Bristol Channel becomes the Severn Estuary, which has a tidal range of 14 metres (46 ft).[19]" Not perfect, but hoefully it gives the idea of what I think is missing / needed better. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added to this with your text.— Rod talk 17:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a slight problem with this sentence This natural border endured for almost a century until further fighting between the Anglo-Saxons and Britons in the mid-8th century, when the border shifted west to its current location between Somerset and Devon.[36] While I understand its menaing, it is no longer a border between the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons (unless I am quite mistaken).
  • Could the comma in brackets be removed to improve the reader's ease of understanding Extensive land recovery was undertaken in the Somerset Levels by land owners between 1770 and the end of the Napoleonic Wars[,] in 1815, as part of a general scheme of agricultural improvements.[46]
  • Done
  • "Improvements" is plural, "this" is singular: Further drainage improvements were needed in the 19th century; and this involved the use of mechanical pumping engines, originally steam powered (see Westonzoyland Pumping Station Museum), but later powered by electricity.[47]
  • Changed to "which involved".— Rod talk 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vincent Stuckey and Walter Bagehot should be identified by their full names (and Bagehot linked) earlier in the article at Construction, at first mention (currently only as "Stuckey and Bagehot" there
  • Done
  • Last sentence, second paragraph of Construction - unclear which lock exactly is meant The lock has since been replaced by a sluice gate to control flooding.[9]
  • Oath lock added.— Rod talk 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea how the American Mink got there?
  • Most mink in the UK were brought in to be farmed but then escaped into the wild, but I will look for a reference to support this assertion.— Rod talk 07:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burton, Maurice (1992) [1973]. Wild Animals. The Observer's Book of. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 1 8547 1019 2. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
"The rearing of mink on farms was established in Britain in 1929. Inevitably some escaped into the wild but there are no records of them breeding until 1957, when young mink were seen on the River Teign in Devon. Since then there have been widespread reports of breeding in England ..." (Burton 1992, pp. 83–84) --Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - assumed it was something like that. I would add something on this - even if it is just the phrase "mink, escaped from breeding farms," Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few words to explain this + ref.— Rod talk 17:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've returned to this article after some 2 months away from it... I see that Citation bot (talk · contribs) has got at it, so all the {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} etc. became {{citation}} on 12 May 2010. This bot is supposed to tally the {{citation}} versus the other types; decide which of the two is in majority, and adjust the minority ones. Unfortunately it was buggy, and changed a number of articles from {{cite xxx}} to {{citation}} even though there were no pre-existing {{citation}}, and River Parrett was one such victim, with this edit. I had this happen to other articles, so informed the bot operator. It seems that the operator had believed that Harvard references would only link to {{citation}}, and misunderstood how the {{cite xxx}} templates work, not realising the significance of |ref=harv - which I had made sure was provided everywhere necessary.
    Right. Rant over. Does anybody mind if I put all those {{citation}} back how they were? Once that is done, I can look at a problem which I've noticed today: at the end of March I'd managed to get all the {{cite book}} (bar one - "Priestley Evans, Evan David (1931). Two papers : entitled ...") down to the "Bibliography" section, with the main text containing {{harvnb}} which link to those (I left the {{cite journal}}, {{cite map}}, {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} in the text). I now see that a number of full refs to books have crept into the main text. I'd like to get those consistent with the other book refs (short note in text, full citation at the bottom). To do that I need to know which ones are books, which {{citation}} does not tell me... --Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do so. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be great. The error was probably mine in using citation bot & not checking the output closely enough. The only books I can see which have "crept in" are: Arthur, William (1857) (text). An etymological dictionary of family and Christian names. With an essay on their derivation and import. New York: Sheldon, Blakeman & Co. p. 213. and Lawrence, J.F. (revised and completed by Lawrence, J.C.) (2005). A History of Bridgwater. Chichester: Phillimore. ISBN 1-86077-363-X. Chapter 8: "The Medieval Port of Bridgwater". Hopefully this would also resolve the outstanding issue above about the italicisation of print sources.— Rod talk 17:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, and done - two edits - one to get the citation back to cite xxx - the other to get three inline cite book to be consistent with the rest. These include the "Priestley Evans, Evan David (1931). Two papers : entitled ..." which I had not done last time.
  • Question Is the last mentioned a single author, last names "Priestley Evans" and forenames "Evan David" - or two authors named "Priestley Evans" and "Evan David"? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar with that reference, which seems to have been obtained via Google books; however, the British Library catalogue [2] treats him as an single author, surname: Evans. Pyrotec (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comment Generally OK, but the Celtic languages used in Wales effectively means Welsh. I don't know of any other Celtic language spoken in Wales then (or now) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd personally say "the Celtic languages" or Brythonic is more accurate than "Welsh", in this particular case. The Parrett is about halfway between Wales and Cornwall; what's actually claimed is that the name derives from the Celtic language spoken across western Britain before the Saxons reached the Severn and thus split Welsh from Cornish and Breton, not that people in present-day Wales named it. – iridescent 17:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a couple of very minor nitpicks:
  • The diagram and list of bridges both appear to be missing the Stathe Drove bridge (51°03′28″N 2°53′34″W / 51.057774°N 2.892742°W / 51.057774; -2.892742);
  • This appears to be a footbridge of recent construction (photos here) and here) but I can't find any other sources for information about it.— Rod talk 18:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found a source for willow cones next to the bridge - so added a sentence & ref.— Rod talk 19:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent; I know it's a nitpick, but given that it's obviously there it ought to be listed. – iridescent 20:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a more reliable source for "Roman Somerset […] lasted until 409"? This dubiously precise to me; the Roman army had certainly been withdrawn from Britain by 410, but that didn't mean Britain (Somerset or otherwise) had left the Empire. At least part of Roman Britain still existed circa 450, when the Groans of the Britons appeal to Rome for reinforcements was made, and geography would suggest that Somerset would have been the last places reached by the Saxons;
  • I agree this is probably over precise. You have sent me scurrying to my books & I find in the chapter on Romano-British Somerset in Victoria History of the Counties of England vol 1. page 210 says "when about 410 the Roman rule in Britain ended , the so-called 'departure of the Romans' did not mean an emigration of alien officials, soldiers and traders.....It was administrative not racial. Rome ceased to send high military and civil officials... but officials were not numerous.. and we may believe that not many Romans actually departed." How about if I change that to "around the beginning of the 5th century"?— Rod talk 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that makes more sense. The fall of the Western Roman Empire wasn't like the British withdrawal from India (or the Turkish conquest of the Eastern Roman Empire), but a gradual breakdown of ties between the provinces and Rome/Constantinople—to set a date where Britannia ends and Britain begins seems overly precise. – iridescent 20:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know anything about what happened when the locks were abandoned? Gut reaction would be that demolition of locks on a canalised river would either have the same effect on whatever was downstream of it as a breached dam, or have led to the sudden appearance of a set of waterfalls, since presumably the water levels on each side of the locks were different. Did the river remain navigable after the closure of the locks, or is the "right of navigation" an in-name-only legal relic like the right to drive sheep over London Bridge?
The water is still managed via sluices. Locks have not actually been demolished. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense—but does that mean boats now need to be ported around the weirs and sluices should they want to exercise that "right to navigate to Oath Lock"? – iridescent 20:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although the lock gates still exist they are not currently operational. The canal is effectively landlocked and isolated from the river. The boats have either been crane or slip launched. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lock gates where it joins the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal are permanently closed creating the basin with boats - there is an explanation re salt water & fresh water at Bridgwater and Taunton Canal#Current use with references which could be used in this article.— Rod talk 18:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit Conflict) Not quite, Rod. There are two sets of parallel locks between the dock's tidal basin and the River Parrett: the small one for boats (usable anytime) and the large one for ships (usable only at high tide); both were blocked off when the dock was offically closed (and that is what Iridescent is refering to. There is another set of boat locks at the far end between the dock and the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal which (I beleive) are still useable. There was a basin and lock at Huntworth: long filled in; and at the far end of the canal there is a lock into the River Tone. I believe boats can travel from the Tone into the dock, but not into the Parrett. Pyrotec (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine—just wanted to check the docks hadn't been reopened since the sources were written. (It does occasionally happen, as with South Dock, Rotherhithe for instance.) – iridescent 20:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few small suggestions or questions. This is a well-researched, nicely illustrated article about a very interesting river.

Geobox
*The length is given as 50 miles in the geobox but 37 miles in the lead and the Course section.
History
*"An alternative explanation, based on Old English, is a derivation from Pedair or Pedride from pedr meaning four and the Old Cornish Rit meaning flow, which in this case would relate to the four flows or streams: the Tone, Yeo, Isle and Parrett,[24] which is based on the explanation given in Ekwall's 1928 book English River Names." - A bit too complex perhaps. Maybe a terminal period after "Parrett" and then a second sentence attributing this explanation to Ekwall?
*"Whichever derivation is correct, the name Parrett and its spelling variations has been in use... ". - "Have" rather than "has"?
Landscape
*"The 19th-century Industrial Revolution opened up mass markets leading to further expansion of the industry: in particular, from 1850 when the Duty (tax) on bricks was abolished." - Lowercase "duty"?
*"use of the Polden Hills roadway would allow more rapid movement to Ilchester" - "Allowed" rather than "would allow"?
*"The White House Inn, a licensed victualler and part-owner of the ferry, on the Pawlett bank traded from 1655 to 1897;" - How about "traded on the Pawlett bank" instead of "on the Pawlett bank traded"?
Port of Bridgwater
*"Historically, the main port on the river was at Bridgwater; the river being bridged at this point, with the first bridge being constructed in 1200 AD." - Three "bridges" and a "with plus -ing". Maybe "Historically, the main port on the river was at Bridgwater, where a span crossed the river from 1200 AD onwards"?
*"In the 1960s, British Railways the owner of the docks, which were limited by the size of its locks to boats of maximum size 180 by 31 feet (55 by 9.4 m),[82] took the decision that they were commercially non-viable." - Comma after Railways? Replace "took the decision" with "decided"?
Geology
*"The reduction in water levels that resulted put local ecosystems at risk, with peat wastage in pasture fields was occurring at rates of 1–3 ft (0.3–0.8 m) over 100 years." - Something wrong here. Maybe a semicolon after "risk" and delete "with" to make a sentence?
Finetooth (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed grammar checking. I've made the chances as you have suggested.— Rod talk 07:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - meets FA criteria, well done. Dincher (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - but I would think that a summary of the history of the bridges, etc. should be included in the History section. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for your support. Your comment, however, about moving Bridges to the History section worries me somewhat. There is a format for "river" articles and that convention demands discussion of the river from source to mouth. The bridges section is written in reverse sequence from mouth to port because that sequence allows and constraints maritime trade - Bridgwater was (is) a port (and being a single small section it could conveniently "put to one side" the standard format for river articles). How far up a river ships and boats can get is determined by river geometry and enginering structures. The information in Bridges could, obviously, be moved into History; but a more logical ordering of the current information would be by date sequence, not from mouth to port. I would also be somewhat concerned that the article could get out of balance with a large History section. I'm interested, however, to learn whether there is a wider view on this. We can obviously move it, if it is considered desirable. Pyrotec (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that the Landscape, Port of Bridgewater sections were separate sections, not subsections. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the current organization of the article and in particular how the bridges and structures are handled. While I am sure there are other ways that the article could be organized, this works and works well (in my opinion). If bridges were part of History, I think they would alsmost have to be discussed in chronological order and agree the upstream order now used works better logically (as it relates to use of the river). It may also be that there are bridges that no longer exists that would need to be discussed if this were part of history. On a different note, Landscape and Port of Bridgewater are subsections (look at the header level in edit mode). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:05, 7 June 2010 (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/River_Parrett/archive2&oldid=1078805565"