Wikipedia:Peer review/Kennet and Avon Canal/archive1

Kennet and Avon Canal

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its been a Good Article for almost 5 years and I feel recent edits have nearly brought it up to the standard for nomination at FAC. I believe the content is comprehensive and largely complies with MOS (there are still a couple of page numbers needed, which I hope to get this week), but I'm often criticised for my less than sparkling prose. So any comments about what else needs to be changed before nomination at FAC would be great.— Rod ^talk 14:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... I shall enjoy reviewing this, as I love canals. It may have to be done in parts as I am very busy on many things at the moment. In the meantime you could fix the single disambiguation link revealed by the tool on the right. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Dab fixed. I (and others) will welcome your comments and hope to address them in a timely manner, but recognise that RL gets in the way of wp for all of us on occasions.— Rod ^talk 16:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A couple of general points

Lead

I found the first lead paragraph a bit indigestible, particularly the ultralong sentence beginning "The name may refer to...". I also don't see the need for the final lead paragraphs, with its detail and description which properly belong in the body of the text. I suggest you replace the present lead with a shorter version, along the lines of the following draft (which you are of course entitled to modify or reject entirely:-

The Kennet and Avon Canal is a navigable waterway in southern England with an overall length of 87 miles (140 km), made up of two river stretches linked by a canal. The name is commonly used to refer to the entire length of the navigation rather than solely to the central canal stretch. From Bristol to Bath the waterway follows the natural course of the River Avon, before the canal section links it to the River Kennet at Newbury and thence, via the River Kennet, to Reading on the Thames. In all the waterway incorporates more than 100 locks. After decades of dereliction and much restoration work, it was fully reopened in 1990.

The two river stretches had been made navigable in the early 18th century. The canal section, 57 miles (92 km) in length, was constructed between 1794 and 1810. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the canal gradually fell into disuse after the opening of the Great Western Railway. In the latter half of the 20th century the canal was restored in stages, largely by volunteers. It has been developed as a popular heritage tourism destination for boating, canoeing, fishing, walking, and cycling, and is also important for wildlife conservation.

Article construction

In my view the "Canal today" section and its Ecology subsection are in the wrong place. I would expect the background and history to be followed by the geographical route descriptions. "Canal today" seems more appropriate as an endpiece. For consideration.

These comments are by way of initial thoughts. More will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for these. I've acted on your suggestions, revising the proposed lead slightly and moving the canal today. I also moved the route map as the shortened lead meant that it got mixed up with the infobox, which has already been discussed on the talk page.— Rod ^talk 17:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A little more...

• Early plans: the chronology is awkward. After the first sentence refers to the Elizabethan era you jump to late 18th/early 19thC, before going back to the early 18th. Some rearrangement of prose advised. I have slightly copyedited, but a little more may be necessary.
• Operation
  • General point: Only the first short paragraph gives information about the canal's operation. This needs to be expanded; I imagine there is more to be said beyond the very limited information you give. We should have some idea of the levels of commercial traffic in the years after 1834; saying that it was "hardly used" is far too vague. To what extent was it still being used, say, in the 20th century before and after the Second World War? At what point did pleasure cruising begin? And so on. The second and third paragraphs record the decline, not the operation of the canal and should be in a different subsection. A few prose suggestions:-
  • "In 1812, the Kennet and Avon Canal Company bought the Kennet Navigation for £100,000, and in 1814 took control of the Avon Navigation". You need to clarify what stretch of waterway they bought. What is the difference between "bought" and "took control"?
  • "...the company an annual revenue of around £45,000 a year" - there seems to be a word missing
  • "By the 1950s large sections of the canal were closed..." - should be "had been closed". There are a few prose glitches like this.
  • Problematic sentence: "The act was opposed by Gould and the local authorities along the canal, supported by a 22,000 signature petition to the Queen which was brought from Bristol by water though parts of the canal had to be traversed by canoe to get it through." The sentence is too long and needs to be split; there is also some pronoun confusion. Where was the petition brought to? Should look something like this: "The act was opposed by Gould and by the local authorities along the canal. They were supported by a 22,000-signature petition to the Queen, brought to xxxx from Bristol by water, though parts of the canal had to be traversed by canoe".
  • The final two sentences belong in the Restoration section

Will do more when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

More comments...

I've adjusted the chronology in Early Plans. I think the most problematic sentence is "Plans for a waterway lay dormant until the early 18th century." What plans and what waterway? The rest of the paragraph doesn't really satisfy the idea of 'plans', and 'waterway' could mean anything -- are we actually saying "a through waterway from Bristol to London" (eg)

What does '... and subscriptions opened.' mean (in 'Construction' section)?

I'll leave the other comments for others to address, as any changes made by me could cloud the issues.

EdJogg (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both for comments. I've had a go at revising the sections highlighted above - but as you've already noticed my prose is not always "professional standard" so any tweaks welcome. If you need any explanation of anything I've added just shout as I have most of the books on the K&A by my elbow.— Rod ^talk 17:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline-->(Rescue)-->Restoration

I have re- proof-read and tweaked the text down to 'Operation', and I think it is shaping up nicely. There is scope for expansion of the 'Operation' section, but it is perfectly adequate as it is. Beyond here the text becomes a bit difficult to read in places, and would benefit from some attention.

I think there is scope for much more prose in the 'Decline' section. For example, the last three sentences of the second paragraph describe topics so unrelated that each could legitimately exist as separate paragraphs or sections. The section covers a century of the canal's existence, so there must be more to say about it.

More importantly, I think there is also scope for an additional section, labelled something like 'Rescue', 'Salvation', or 'The turning point'. The 'Decline' section naturally finishes at the sentence "By the 1950s...Avoncliff Aqueduct." After this, the rest of the paragraph really starts talking about the 'Rescue' which continues with the first paragraph presently in 'Restoration'. The 'Restoration' section would then start at "The collaboration involved...", although the text will need adjusting to introduce the section properly. So this segregates the three distinct periods, the middle one being the recognition that the canal needs saving, but before the actual restoration work has commenced. (Having done this, you will also see there are two references to the petition/canoe/etc in the same section, so these can be rationalised.) Worth pursuing?

EdJogg (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at these; please take a look and see what you think. User:Bob1960evens has also kindly revised all of the route maps & made various other suggestions for improvement in a talk page conversation.— Rod ^talk 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem to work. Next stage is to examine the prose. I think the new section title might be better as 'Closure avoided', or something like that maybe, rather than repeating 'restoration' in two headings. It should become clearer when I start thinking about it in detail. (PS -- just realised that the Restoration section itself is quite sparse. The gap between the paragraphs neatly indicates that there's a huge chunk of history missing (ten years worth of restoration, at least!))

New topic: What about the arguments over cruiseway status? I seem to remember that it was years between the re-opening of the canal and the change from 'remainder waterway' to 'cruiseway', with the significant change that BW then became legally responsible for keeping it open and in good order, whereas otherwise it could theoretically have deteriorated again. There was much wrangling during this time. Any of your references cover this? -- EdJogg (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Cruiseway status seems to have been gained earlier this year so too recent for the books I have (see water watch post).— Rod ^talk 17:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent find. It was sourced from the original here, which is a British Waterways site and hence surely counts as RS. This is important, so needs to go in somewhere. (But we'll need to archive the site anyway.) -- EdJogg (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added this as the last line of restoration - along with adding info on the 1980s.— Rod ^talk 09:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Closure avoided

Something is not quite right here. Both paragraphs mention a petition with 22,000 signatures and canoes, using identical words. Were they the same or different? Bob1960evens (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You are right there is duplication & this section is not chronological, which is probably how it arose.— Rod ^talk 09:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Rod's right. I was aware of the problem when I suggested the above, and knew the move would highlight the issue. It can be resolved when this section is expanded further. (The existing IWA ref has plenty of info for this section.) -- EdJogg (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had a crack at making it chronological & removing the duplication. Further tweaks &/or expansion welcome.— Rod ^talk 10:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• "...no longer commercially viable" Does this need further explanation (only a few words)? We are now so used to all the canals being nationally owned and maintained by BW, essentially as a leisure resource, that the subtle implication of the canal having to pay for its own upkeep through the carriage of goods is possibly lost here.

• I've changed "no longer commercially viable" to "no longer able to collect enough fees from tolls to pay for the upkeep".— Rod ^talk 14:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• "...canal should be redeveloped..." -- is this the actual wording used in the report? To my mind a 'redevelopment site' implies that what's there will be removed and replaced with a new development. This is not the case here. Would 'renovated' be more appropriate (implying renewal of what's already there)?

-- EdJogg (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't got a copy of the original report but Clew p 164 uses the word "redevelop". Redevelop to me means something like "building work to make it usable again". Renovated would be OK but we already have 2x restoration & a restore in that paragraph - do they all have specific meaning?— Rod ^talk 14:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Restoration

This is much better, although the paragraph starting "Queen Elizabeth II..." still reads a little like a series of short paragraphs that have been combined.

Other thoughts:

• Bridge Street bridge, Reading. Was it too low for craft to pass under? The current text only implies that the bridge was the obstruction.

• Expanded.— Rod ^talk 14:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• "In Wiltshire worries about water supply required back pumping and put the estimated cost for the county up to £761,560."

I think this needs expanding, if only to resolve how 'worries' might require back pumping...(sorry, for FAC I tend to read text literally). For example, "...concerns over the limited water supply [to the long pound?] indicated that back-pumping would be required at [...] [to maintain the correct level]". The brackets are because I can't decide how much prior knowledge or common sense (about the construction and use of canals) to assume on the part of our readers.

• I've expanded this with volumes & costs.— Rod ^talk 14:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please check the sentence including Woolhampton Lock vs 'narrow boats'. I've changed it to narrowboats (as opposed to wide boats) for now, but would just 'boats' be more accurate?

• Applies to all boats (except canoes etc which you could carry).— Rod ^talk 14:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• The royal reopening was in 1990, but when was full through navigation restored? Did the Queen traverse Caen Hill by boat?

• Expanded.— Rod ^talk 15:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Devizes back-pumping -- by way of comparison, is it worth mentioning how much water is used by the passage of one boat up the flight?

• Hmmm having trouble with this one - will keep looking.— Rod ^talk 15:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Easy! (with hindsight)

Obviously neither of us looked at Caen Hill Locks, where the figure of "one lockful every eleven minutes" is quoted (with a ref) :O) -- EdJogg (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The text there "32 million litres of water per day to the top of the flight, which is equivalent to one lockful every eleven minutes" is supported by Pearson (I have a copy as a souvenir of our trip on the K&A a few years ago), but doesn't answer the question "how much water is used by the passage of one boat up the flight?" - which is what I was searching for.— Rod ^talk 16:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right, that still isn't adequate. Instead you may be interested in this page (already used on Caen Hill article), which lists the dimensions of the locks; this one, which mentions that a lock cycle can use 50,000 gallons of water; and this one which not only discusses calculations for the water used, but also considers energy usage and why side ponds are more efficient!

For Lock 41, the narrowest on the canal:

-- the width is 13' 11", the length is 74' 2", and the volume of water used is this surface area times the fall of 8' 2".

-- Putting that into metric: 4.3 x 22.6 x 2.5 = 242.95m³ = 242,950 litres = 53,441.5068 Imperial gallons

-- from which you can easily pick an approximate figure of 50,000 gallons

Any help? -- EdJogg (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've looked at the sources you've given which are helpful, & I will go with your calculations. However... If this is for Lock 41 (the smallest) presumably for the other locks the figure would be higher? Would it not depend on the state before the boat arrives at the lock (ie is it full or empty). There must also be some other loss as the paddles are never completely watertight. Would presenting a figure for a single lock be the best way forward or do we need some multiplier for multiple lock flights (I'm aware of the large side ponds to cope with this). Do we take into account the 29 locks at Devizes or just the 16 in the main flight? I have emailed the K&A canal trust, asking them to look at the article and asking this specific question.— Rod ^talk 08:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

What we're trying to show is how much water is used by a boat traversing the flight, compared to the capacity of the backpumps, but just as a ballpark figure for the layman. One boat will use one lockful of water right up/down the flight, since the water will effectively travel with it -- easiest to imagine a boat going down the flight (OK, it's not the same water going up!). An interesting question: if the locks aren't all the same size, what happens to the extra water? And how come the larger lock next to 41 never runs out of water? For the whole flight you would need to consider both the width and the fall of each lock (assuming the length is the same), but I think you'll find that they will all be around the same figure of 50-55000 gallons. Incidentally, leakage would vary depending on whether the locks were full or empty, since full locks leak more (bottom gates are always taller and hence more leaky) and also, potentially, on the age of the gates. The backpump capacity will presumably be designed to support 'n' flight traversals per hour or per day, plus an offset to allow for leakage and other environmental considerations (evaporation, leaky canoes, boaters falling in locks, etc) -- EdJogg (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this expansion. Are you saying we need to include a figure in the article? if so how do we provide a reliable source?— Rod ^talk 13:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• No date on the lottery grant, and are there any more details of what it was used for. Any specific projects?

• Expanded with date & example projects.— Rod ^talk 15:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This whole section is looking really good now. There's a real feeling for the scale and variety of the work that was required, and some of the issues encountered. And I no longer read it and think "there's a chunk of history missing here". -- EdJogg (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Cruiseway -- 'needs' is a bit weak. Should it be 'legally required'? The change from 'Remainder' is A Big Thing, and needs to be reflected here.

• Changed. Is an article explaining what this means needed, which could then be linked from this & other articles?— Rod ^talk 15:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, or at least, the existing coverage expanded. I had an issue some time back where I needed to refer to these terms, so I added 'definitions' in British Waterways, and created redirects, which are used in Transport Act 1968 but they simply point to the BW article at present. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

-- EdJogg (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)