Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal

Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal edit

I've reformatted this list several times to try to make the data more understandable & added notes & references where necessary. All available data has been included. I know there are still 2 red links which I will be working on but I hope it meets featured list criteria. — Rod ^talk 08:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nice list, could you please explain briefly on what a "listed building grade" is so readers won't have to open the main article to get the information? -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 18:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note (F) briefly explaining listed building status.— — Rod ^talk 18:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 13:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is very nice. Sorry, but I have bashed the lead around a bit. I have a few queries/comments on the rise/fall column. (i) Are the rise/fall measurements really accurate to 0.1mm? (e.g. "7ft 8 ins (2236.8mm)") (ii) The smallest change is over 1 foot, so perhaps the metre would be a better choice of unit. (185928mm is distinctly odd) (iii) Given that we are going from Bristol to the Thames, would it be possible to say whether the measurement is a "rise" or "fall" in that direction? (iv) Some figures for rise/fall are missing, particularly for the locks on the Avon. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments (& bashing the lead). I did wonder about the units, my source (Pearsons book) gives feet & inches & I converted them. I will redo to meters & remove the mm asap. Rise & fall is a difficult one as it depends on the direction the boat is travelling in. Also the highest point is the summit between Wootton Top Lock & Crofton Locks so everything could be said to be downhill from there. A few on the Avon Navigation I do not have data for (they are missing in the book) & I've looked around but not yet been able to find this data. — Rod ^talk 12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have a reference in feet and (integer) inches, you shouldn't really convert to anything with an accuracy greater than 2.5cm. Tenths of a millimetre are much too small! "x.xx m" should be ok, though. As I said, the numbering gives you a direction of travel (Bristol to the Thames). A footnote can make it clear that it would be the opposite in the other direction. Are you sure there are no ups and downs (valleys, hills) on the way from the global maximum to either end? Good luck with getting the extra data - it must be around somewhere. I seem to remember that you can buy maps of canal routes with locks and falls marked? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was also wondering about the false precision myself. The solution proposed by ALoan seems to me to be the adequate one. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 13:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Units now converted to metres. There are lots of ups and downs (valleys, hills) along the route - this is the whole point of the locks, but I'm afraid I don't understand the "global maximum" comment & having looked at Maxima and minima, I' still being dense :-( Although we have the direction of travel from the numbering Bristol -> Reading you are only going up to Crofton & then down to the Thams. I will continue to search for the missing data, but bought/borrowed the relevant books & maps for a recent holiday (which triggered these articles) & the data for those locks is mssing. I have a couple of contacts I will try to get more info. — Rod ^talk 13:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the point is whether it goes gradually up to the top and then gradually down the other side, or whether it goes up a bit, then down a bit, then up a bit more to the top, then down a bit, then up a bit, and then down a bit more to the end. Is it really rise rise rise (top) fall fall fall, or rise, fall, rise, rise, top, fall, fall, rise, fall. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right I think I understand now it's rise rise rise (top) fall fall fall. — Rod ^talk 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Continueation the above)... That's correct. From each end canal rises until it reaches the pound between Wootton Top Lock (#54) and Crofton Top Lock (#55). I've added a note to the article accordingly. Tompw 16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - sorry, but I can't support this until the list of rise and fall figures is completed. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I've now managed to find all but one of the rise & fall data (the one at Hanham seems to be truly unknown - I'm tempted to go along with a tape measure!!!). As as result I've changed the column width to take account of individual referencing of sources - it does mean that one reference is repeated many times & I can't see any way around this. I'm beginning to wish I'd never put in the rise & fall data I did have.— Rod ^talk 13:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. You can reduce the reference links by using a "notes" section and/or by collapsing identical references by giving the first use a name - such as <ref name="xxx">yyy</ref> - which is reused on second and subsequent occasions - <ref name="xxx" />. See, for example, Dürer's Rhinoceros, or One-day International cricket hat-tricks. HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I've reduced the reference list as you suggested (I've also used the same technique on the Kennet and Avon Canal article). You may have to give me a few days for the last (Hanham Lock) rise and fall data. A very helpful man from British Waterways, who uses Wikipedia but doesn't feel confident to edit pages, is looking through their records & if it can't be found has volunteered to climb into the lock with a tape measure!— Rod ^talk 09:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your enthusiasm, but isn't that original research? Isn't it published anywhere? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge (after extensive library & online searches) & that of everyone I've asked this is not published anywhere. If this list can't reach featured quality without this data & we are not allowed to measure it (not extensive research as far as I can see) how can this list meet the crtieria???? — Rod ^talk 10:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I suppose I can't really oppose for the absence of unverifiable information. If it is added, it would be sensible to add a note on how it was obtained. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have a few comments.

Why are the Bath Locks handled differently from the other multiple-lock entries (e.g. Semington Locks)? I'd say they should all either be expanded to individual rows (with some entries sharing wikilinks, or using redirects) or else remove the Bath Locks detail.
I'm glad the accuracy of the metric numbers has been changed, though I'd have gone to just 1 decimal place - it should be more readable. Regardless, I recommend moving the metric value to its own column (removing the need for "m" units), making it right-aligned, and displaying the same number of decimal places for every row. I think that could look neater. See the List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon for an example.
The lock number ranges should use an n-dash.

Colin°^Talk 16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I've seperated the Bath Locks on the list. The reason for the difference is that Bath locks are all named whereas Semington, Seend, Caen Hill & Crofton are not named individually. I've changed the metric measurements to one decimal place & given them their own column as you suggest. I'm sorry I didn't know what an n-dash is & having looked at Dash don't know how to put one in (help appreciated). — Rod ^talk 20:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Semington Locks article, they are called Buckley's (15) and Barrett's (16). I have just noticed that you don't have rise/fall figures for all the entries – which is essential really. Also, since you say the canal goes up to a single peak and down again, it would be interesting to know the total rise from 1..54 and fall from 55 to 107. Perhaps you could add this to the lead.

re: n-dash. When you edit an article, there should be a box of symbols below the "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." warning. The very first symbol after the word "Insert:" is an n-dash. The next is an m-dash, which is used for open ranges (such as when specifying the birth/death range in a biography for someone who isn't dead). Colin°^Talk 08:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the Semington Locks entries as you suggest (but don't have rise & fall data individually). I am awaiting a call back from BWB for the missing data. I've inserted n-dash, although I can't see any difference, another piece of new style guide for me. — Rod ^talk 09:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added the designer and construction dates from the canal article but no I see that these disagree with dates already in the article. What are the dates in the first paragraph? Also if there are only 90 locks in the canal, why do we list 105? Rmhermen 23:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing the lead. I have removed the other dates because they were confusing - they related to the Avon & Kennet navigations which were opened before the K&A proper between Bath & Newbury. The 90 locks do not include the navigations with 6 & 9 locks which make up the other 15 - however the full canal is named, numbered & administered as one canal. I hoped I had made this clear in notes A & B but perhaps I need to put this in the lead as well? — Rod ^talk 07:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good to me! However, an article on Ufton Lock, explaining when, how and why it was removed (during the 70s restoration I suppose) would be a good addition, if you have the information (I'm left wondering how you go about removing a lock from a canal!). --G Rutter 11:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseThanks for the support- I will look for info on Ufton Lock, but I'm guessing you just remove the lock gates & leave it as a narrowing — Rod ^talk 13:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't deal with the problem that the water is at different levels on either side of the lock (else, why was there ever a lock there?) The only ways I can see to do it would be either to make the canal much deeper above the lock, or the banks much higher below it, both of which seem thoroughly impractical! --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question - impractical it may be, but this suggests that my first suggestion is correct. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub about the Site of Ufton Lock created. I have asked Mike Stevens, whose photo of Ufton Lock you pointed to, and he is willing for some of his photos of the locks to be used. — Rod ^talk 10:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. I've moved it to Ufton Lock - it's more about the former lock than the current site. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]