Template:Did you know nominations/Cassington Canal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Cassington Canal

(
)
  • ... that despite being less than a mile long, annual revenues of the Cassington Canal equated to roughly £75,000 ($102,739.73 USD) today? "The length about six furlongs" (Compton, 1976, p 61); ""Cassington Wharf produced receipts of around £800 per annum [pre-1834]" (Hamilton, 1995). Inflation per {{inflation}} and US conversion per {{to USD}}.

Created by MIDI (talk). Self-nominated at 17:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC).

  • This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright or plagiarism issues. I trust the conversion figures are OK, having never had the opportunity to use these conversion templates. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but thought it was located in the United States due to the conversions. Could you describe the length in meters as in the article? Also, a bit more of its purpose or notability should be added to the lead. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Have expanded the article lead. Not sure what the concern about conversions is—the currency lists GBP first (with USD for context), and for length measurements both the hook and article use imperial (the canal was constructed pre-metric, and imperial remains the de facto standard on the inland waterways of the UK). More than happy to fix anything that needs fixing, but at the moment I'm not sure what needs doing. MIDI (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

At first reading I was confused by the hook. It looks like that the canal earns £75,000 today. It needs a little rewriting to say that in 1834 the canal had revenues of £800 per year (equivalent to £75,000 today). BTW, even in the 19th century, that was not a huge amount of money, so the hook is not all that remarkable... -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Alt1 ... that despite being only 1,300 yards long, in the 1830's, the annual revenues of the Cassington Canal were roughly £75,000 in today's money? --evrik (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Shifting away from the finances (and any associated confusion), how's this:
MIDI (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
That would work, but I'm not sure it's particularly interesting to a broad audience, and it implies the canal's sole reason for existence was salt trade (the article wording is "including the trade from his salt works"). I think my preference would be a slight tweak on ALT2 to make it a bit more accessible to more readers:
MIDI (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT30: "... that the 1,300-yard (1,200 m) Cassington Canal was privately built to connect theinland waterways network with INSERT INTERESTING ITEM HERE? --
  • I'm not thrilled with the unused potential of a considered loading point ... maybe we can modify #3? --evrik (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • My problem with any of the ALT3 variants is the phrase "inland waterways network", which not only needs either a "the" or an "an" before it, but needs to be defined or explained somewhere: the wikilink is not helpful in defining or explaining said network. ALT2 might be more interesting if we knew what the loading point ended up being—that much should really be in the article proper. If one end of the canal is the Thames, mightn't that be something to hang a hook on? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I added the missing article. --evrik (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Crikey, the Waterways in the United Kingdom article really does need looking at! I've updated the Cassington Canal article per your suggestion re: ALT 2—the primary loading point was on a different watercourse altogether in the end (the architect decided on a different type of stone than that which occurred near Cassington). Despite this (i.e. despite the fact this canal wasn't used for transporting the stone) I think having the hook include the Houses of Parliament makes it far more engaging for lots of readers; if you think there's something usable in that then that's my preference. I don't think there's anything particularly remarkable about a canal connecting to the Thames, especially this tiny one a long way from London, so I don't think anything hooky could be made by going down that route. MIDI (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I like the original hook, so what about? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT0a ... that despite the Cassington Canal being less than a mile long, annual revenues in the 1830s were £800 sterling, equating to roughly £75,000 ($102,739.73 USD) in today's money?
As OP I'm fine with that; I think my preference has shifted to ALT2a or similar but I'm more than happy with this if it is agreed to be suitable! MIDI (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Following up on the reviews before, approving variants on ALT0 and ALT2 - note that miles is still the normal measurement of such distances in the UK, which regularly uses imperial. Not a fan of alt3, for complexity and reasons mentioned by others above. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi, I came by to promote ALT2a. The hooks that are full of numbers are very hard to read. But the length being given in ALT2a is only mentioned in the lead, without a cite, and other figures for the length are given in the body of the article. Could you use the same figures in the lead, body, and infobox please? Yoninah (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. All fixed to reflect the cited length of 0.75 mi, with a footnote to explain that the survey gave the length as 6 furlongs (i.e. 3/4 mi). MIDI (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Restoring tick per Kingsif's review. Yoninah (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've pulled this back from prep and struck ALT2a, which was promoted. The problem here is that the claim is too overblown: considered a loading point for the stone used is simply not true. Cassington Wharf was listed in the report as a loading point for a completely different stone than was used—the report listed over 100 possible quarries, with no indication of any favorites. As is, the hook is inaccurate, and the Houses of Parliament connection just doesn't work. Pinging MIDI, Kingsif, and Yoninah; I don't know whether any in the ALT0 series might be feasible, or perhaps another approach would be best. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Alt0a should be fine. I only approved the alt2 hooks because the nominator expressed interest in those. I'll check that the inaccuracy isn't in the article, too? Kingsif (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out, @BlueMoonset:. I guess I hadn't looked at the wording objectively—I hadn't intended to imply that the canal was considered for use regardless of the stone chosen, but looking back that's what the wording may imply. The article doesn't necessary reflect this ("...was considered as a loading point for Taynton stone if it was to be used in the rebuilding of the Houses of Parliament"). Would something close to the below meet requirements? MIDI (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 3a and 3b, now cast aside might be good to review again. --evrik (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you, evrik, but ALT2b is so iffy as to be un-hooky. I agree that ALTs 3a and 3b deserve a second look. Pinging MIDI and Kingsif for their comments on those hooks. Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 3b seems fine enough, but I might look through the article and see if there's anything else to be spun into a good hook. Kingsif (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I am still dubious about the "inland waterways network" phrase in ALTs 3a and 3b, enough so that I earlier reworded it in the article to be more clear, so I think a rewording here would be advisable as well. Perhaps end them with "to the River Thames and the country's network of canals and rivers", or something similar? (Would it be "country's" or "kingdom's"?) Agree that 2b is a non-starter (being of a punnish temperament, I almost wrote "not 2b" instead of "a non-starter"). BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, that was the issue above. On the country/kingdom question, the United Kingdom page says sovereign state. Kingsif (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It also says, The UK Prime Minister's website has used the phrase "countries within a country" to describe the United Kingdom., so it would seem "country's" is valid. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Rewording ALT3a and ALT3b to avoid "inland waterways network"; I've struck ALT2b and the other hooks, leaving the updated hooks below:
A review of these would be welcome. —BlueMoonset (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As OP I'd be happy with either of those—3a1 gives a bit more detail (part of the hookiness is how short the canal is/was) but at the expense of the hook perhaps being a bit too long (the irony!). If a reviewing editor doesn't feel that including the length makes the hook to long then that would be my preference, but more than happy with either. MIDI (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Hook review. Good to go with ALT3b1, short hook for a short canal. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Cassington_Canal&oldid=937039911"