Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/River Parrett/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:29, 23 January 2010 [1].

River Parrett[edit]

Nominator(s): — Rod talk, Pyrotec
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for featured status because it has been a stable GA for nearly a year. Recent collaborative editing has made it the most comprehensive article on the river which, I believe, complies with MOS issues. Issues raised in the extensive discussion on the talk page and in a peer review have been addressed. Comments are of course welcome and issues identified will be addressed as quickly as possible.— Rod talk 18:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC) This is a co-nom with User:Pyrotec.— Rod talk 09:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So, how big is its drainage basin? Is it 1,690 mi²? Or is it 1,690 km²? It tells us both figures, but converts the latter backwards if that's what it is, from then-overprecise square miles back to km² rather than from the original. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I have taken "The Parrett Catchment Water Management Strategy Action Plan" (PDF). Environment Agency. 2002. p. 13. Retrieved 2 January 2010. as being the definitive answer because it is from the government agency with responsibility. It says "The total catchment of the River Parrett and its tributaries covers some 1,665 sq km". I have converted this to 643 Sq mi as the geobox is in imperial measurements & lost the fake accuracy in the lead.— Rod talk 10:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Though I don't like the idea changing an original measurement first by doing your own calculations, then using some black-box templates ({{convert}} and {{Geobox}}) to convert it back again hoping you'll get back to the original. A vain hope in the case of the number in the text, where you got back to 1,670 km² Better to put the original measurement first, and that could be done with this Geobox infobox template, couldn't it? Just replace the part after the underscore for that parameter. It certainly could be done in the text itself. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what's with the "over" in the text? Did it originally say something like "over 650 square miles" (based on the 1,690 km² figure), or something like that? It probably doesn't belong there if you use the most precise figure you have. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you are suggesting in relation to the geobox? Also if we put in the original figure from the Environment Agency ie 1,665 sq km we will then have some measurements in the article in metric first & the rest in imperial first - I believe the MOS says that imperial first is OK for UK topics but should consistent within the article. Guidance appreciated.— Rod talk 12:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "A foolish consistency is a hobgoblin of little minds."
The only sensible way to do it is to place the original measurements first. That provides, for example, the best clues we have as to the accuracy of the original measurement.
But let's say that we do want to insist on a monolithic method. This isn't a historical article, as you might have with a ship built in the 1800s, for example. This is an article about a present-day geographic feature. It's in the UK, a place which is supposed to have been metricized many decades ago. And your originals were indeed in metric units, not in the least bit surprisingly. So if we want to be foolishly consistent, then it ought to be metric-units-first consistency and not English-units-first consistency. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been debated in many places on several occasions & although the UK is supposed to have been metricated many decades ago, common usage and some "official" documents are still in imperial. If I did convert them all in the article it would lead to the same problem where other source documents are imperial first. I wish there was a simple answer to this tension between consistency and using the original sources, but I am not aware of one and would go with whatever consensus is arrived at here.— Rod talk 19:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The UK is a metric country, in the majority but not in full. Miles are still legal units and our legal speed limits (maximum limits) are defined in miles per hour. In this particular problem, I would suggest that square miles or square kilometres are equally acceptable as units of measurment of catchment area. I would however like to state that in the UK we use metric and Imperial units; the USA, in contrast, uses English units and some metric units. Imperial and English units are not necessary indentical: the US and the UK pound and gallon, for instance, are different. Pyrotec (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Pyrotec says, in the UK various units are used. Metrification never was fully completed. I think some government bodies produce figures in SI units because they probably have to submit them to the EU, other authorities use imperial units. But I do see the sense in using the units from the source, the only problem being that it may introduce confusions for the reader. Also, I did the same sort of conversion for the discharge figures so they can revert to the SI original if the is the consensus here. I guess it it just a question of consistency v using the sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox uses current information, likely available from some government source, and likely presented in metric units (or both). In the text of the article it may be different. For example, when water flow is measured in archaic units such as long tons per minute, something I've never noticed in contemporary usage, those measurements should appear first. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So may I just clarify - you want the units in the infobox to be metric, but are not worried if the rest of the article is imperial? If so and other reviewers will not object I would be happy to do this.— Rod talk 17:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved in the last few days URL now replaced.— Rod talk 19:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 Enviromental Agency of WHAT?
  • Sorry, I meant more that you should say more of what it is in the ref... so "Welsh Enviromental Agency" or similar. Just to give some idea of what governmental body is being used in the ref. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some text to try to explain.— Rod talk 20:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced with another ref - I could ref the Ordance Survey map if that would be helpful?
  • Ord would be fine. You can also show that the first ref is reliable, I coudlnt' find anything on their home page about who/what they were. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OS map ref added
  • Site by David Nash Ford who according to EBK General Info has a joint Bachelor of Arts Honours Degree in History & Archaeology from the University of Reading.
  • BAs are a dime a dozen, they don't make it a reliable source. Nor does this site cite its own sources. Even if the site itself is reliable by WP:RS, it's not a "high quality" source by FA criteria. If you need help finding sources for this information, drop me a note on my talk page with what you need sourced, and I bet I can find it in my library. (This is one of my main areas that I contribute to Wikipedia on, Medieval England, so I've got the sources.) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That ref is used to support the claim that "The River Parrett was established as the border between Wessex and Dumnonia in 658 AD, following the defeat of the West Welsh (Dumnonia) in the Battle of Peonnum, at Penselwood that year." It is on Britannia.com & historyfiles.co.uk as well - would either of those be acceptable or do you have something better? (Just checking Dunning & Hawkins as well)
  • Its in the Hawkins book so I've added that as a ref.
  • (ec) Stenton, Frank Anglo-Saxon England Third Edition. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK 1971 ISBN 978-0-19-280139-5 p. 63. It also says that "Under the year 658 the Chronicle [he means the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle here] states that Cenwalh, king of Wessex, fought with the Britons a æt Peonnum and drove them in flight as far as the river Parret." if you wanna add that tidbit also. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks I've added that as you cite it but I'm getting ISBN=978-0192801395 for a 3rd edition published in 2001?— Rod talk 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright is 1971, the 2001 is just a paperback reprint, nothing was changed from the 1971 copyright Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced with another ref
  • The Hadfield ref needs page numbers, World Cat lists it as 206 pages.
  • The Robinson ref needs page numbers.
  • Done
  • The Waite ref needs page numbers
  • Done
  • The Hawkins ref needs page numbers
  • Done
  • Ref 28 is borked somehow.
  • Now fixed
  • The Dunning ref needs page numbers
  • Done
  • The Hadfield ref needs page numbers (and the author should be Hadfield, Charles to be consistent with the rest of hte article.
  • Made the same as other Hadfield refs but I don't have the pages nos yet
  • The Nicholson Water Guides needs a page number
  • The cumberlidge ref needs a page number
  • I've replaced this one with the Nicholson ref (p25) which makes the same point
  • The BUsh ref needs a page number
  • Done
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - some done, some may have to wait a few days until I can get back to the library - unless anyone else has personal copies of the relevant books.— Rod talk 19:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe allthe references & page number issues are now addressed.— Rod talk 14:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They had all been added since the nomination, but now dealt with.— Rod talk 22:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images. This is my first image review, which the delegates may want to take into account. But here goes:

To be continued. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 05:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all the images. There's also a template, Template:River Parrett map, which contains a diagram, and I can't see how that was created. Could the nominator explain, please? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 06:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Thanks for the image review. geograph.co.uk is a very useful site for UK geography articles and specifically designed to release images under CC Attribution-Share Alike licence & my thanks to the many different photographers who submit their photographs there. The template, Template:River Parrett map was created by User:Bob1960evens who has done similar template for hundreds of UK waterways using symbols etc from Template:Waterways legend. He has contributed these to wp in the same way anyone does with text so I don't think this should be any problem but I will put a note on the editors talk page, pointing to this discussion.— Rod talk 09:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fully understand what the question is. Click on Template:River Parrett map and then click on "edit this page" (same as editing an article or a talkpage, such as this one).Pyrotec (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pyrotec, it was the symbols on the template I was talking about; I was thinking it was one image, rather than lots of little symbols. Rod, thanks, I see where they come from now. Okay, that's fine, then, all the images seem to be in order. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 14:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The photos are fine. The canal map icons seem pretty fine on their own: most are {{PD-ineligible}}, but there is a prevalent opinion on Commons (pointed out by Carl Lindberg, I think) that as long as the uploaders declare the images as PD and do not claim copyright, it is okay. I note that the ones by T.h state "Icons von Berhina (Icons of Berhina)": possibly pointing out these are derivative works, but possibly not an issue due to the simple shapes involved. Jappalang (talk) 06:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia mapping project was started by German wikipedia for the mapping of railways, and Berhina created a number of the initial icons for that project. It has since spread around the world. For those of us without sophisticated SVG editors, it is often easier to take an existing icon and alter the contents without altering the basic structure of the svg. Many simple editors will not bother to alter the header information, and so Berhina's name gets retained, although the icon is quite different to look at. If you are prepared to hack the svg, the size of files can be reduced by about 80%, and at that level you notice the guff in the top of the file, and may remove or alter it. I think you would find it difficult to establish them as derivative, in view of the fact that most icons consist of just a few lines, and maybe a circle. Once I knew what I was doing, subsequent icons had the headers altered and were uploaded to Commons with a PD tag. I hope that helps. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this and have been involved in a number of PRs and FACs for stream articles that are now FAs. I think it is generally well done (and someone desrves a barnstar for the alt text in the diagram), but I think there are some areas that need improvement before it meets all the FAC requirements. I will start now and have more comments later.

  • Organization - I commented on this in the PR, but I think that there is a mix of things in the Course section that should probably be elsewhere. All but one of the current Wikiproject Rivers FAs starts with a Course section, often with the Discharge as a subsection. These mention pretty much all the places that will be touched on later in the article, but does not generally go into history. Here discharge is mixed in with course, and the Tidal bore is its own very short section at the end of the article. There is also some history mixed in with the course, such as a brief description of Bridgewater Castle or the contents of museums. I think it is OK to have history in the course section if it is history of how the course / flow has changed over time. So the material on the peninsula and islands is OK. I would move the rest of the history into the history section, and put the discharge and tidal bore into its own subsection at the bottom of the Course section. If desired, the Course section could then be called something like "Course and flow" and the subsection "Discharge and tidal bore".
  • I note that Bridgwater Castle is not mentioned elsewhere in the article - if it is important enough to be in the Course section, shouldn't it be in the history as well?
    • Sorry to have missed that - I searched for "Bridgwater Castle" and was in a hurry. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know how far up the river the tidal bore travels? If so, that should be included.
  • I also note that there are not many distances given in the course section - would it be possible to indicate rough distances along the river there? We are told how far its source is from that of the River Axe, then nothing else on distances.
  • I also note that there are three images in the Course section, which partially sandwich text between them (which WP:MOSIMAGE says not to do), but no images in the Landscape subsection of History. Could an image be moved there?
  • There are places that need to provide more context to the reader - for example what was the approximate time period for the Romans in the area?
  • Minor MOS issues - for example in the lead a % is used, but the MOS says spelling it our (per cent) is preferred, or circa is not italicized (but is Latin, so I think it is just abbreviated c.)
  • Language could be tightened / polished in several places - here are two examples:
    • The village of Combwich lies on Combwich Reach, where the River Parrett flows to the sea past [the] The Steart Peninsula. do not capitalize "the"
    • A "neck" started to form in the peninsula and by 1802 AD the tip had broken off to form an island: Stert Island.[19] already made it clear this is AD in preceding sentence (18th century), avoid needless repetition of island, and this is just an observation, but it is spelled "Steart" in two other places in the article, so is "Stert" here correct or a typo?

More later, hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly the name Steart/Stert. I checked various sources, including the Ordnance Survey maps and the Victoria County History. There is a settlement (more of a farm) which is called Steart; but the island (Sert Island), the drove (Stert drove), the flats (Stert flats) and the point are called Stert (Stert Point). Ref 19 uses Stert for all of them. There is a certain amount of ambiguity over the spelling of the peninsula - both names are in use and wikipedia has an article Steart Peninsula which wrongly spells the island: but the OS does not name the peninsula. Pyrotec (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bridgwater castle and its market, but not its mote, is mentioned in History, in the penultimate paragraph of Landscape. I more than happy to expand that subsection, if that is required. Pyrotec (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image moved and suggested grammar improvments carried out. Pyrotec (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you clarify what you are asking for in repect of Course and History? You seem fairly content for Bridgwater castle to remain in Course but you also seem to want it added (but its already there) in to History. The History subsection, Landscape, already covers changes to the course of the river and embankement, etc. Are you asking for this to be moved into Course and some of the history in Course to be moved out? Pyrotec (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you also clariy the distinction between course and discharge? Presummably almost everything in Course except the last paragraphh is course; and the last paragraph of Course is Discharge? Pyrotec (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Columbia River is the most recent FA to follow the model Course section I am advocating, basically look at everything in there and see if it directly pertains to the course of the river - the only history in there is on the glacial floods which changed the river's course for a while. That said, I think it is fine and helpful to mention any place mentioned later in the rest of the article, but I think it is distracting to go into detail on historical or other details. For one example where the article does this well already, see this brief mention of Muchelney Abbey in the Course section now ...through Thorney and Muchelney, passing the remains of Muchelney Abbey before entering Langport.... Later there is much on the history of Muchelney Abbey. All this said, here is what I would move out or change:
  • I would move this to the flow or discharge subsection at the end - it is not about the Course: The Parrett has a mean flow, as measured by the Environment Agency at a gauging station at Chiselborough, of 67.45 cubic feet per second (1.910 m3/s), with a peak of 6,109 cubic feet per second (173.0 m3/s) on 30 May 1979 and a minimum of 2.5 cubic feet per second (0.071 m3/s) on 22 August 1976.[8]
  • I would also move the whole "Tidal bore" section to this new flow or discharge section.
  • This is problematic: The lock at the deserted medieval village of Oath marks the river's tidal limit.[9] It was built when it was realised that those at Stanmoor and Langport would not provide the depth of water specified in the Act of Parliament of 4 July 1836 authorising the construction of the River Parrett Navigation.[10][11] It has since been replaced by a sluice gate to control flooding.[12] The last two sentences are not really pertinent to the Course and should probably be moved to the History section somewhere. I also think that years should be added (if known) when the lock was built and when the sluice gate replaced it. The first sentence could then be something like The sluice gate (formerly a lock) at the deserted medieval village of Oath marks the river's tidal limit.[9] I also guess this may be the limit of the tidal bore too?
  • I think this is OK (brief description plus Burrow Mump just sounds cool) The next major landmark along the river's course is Burrow Mump, an ancient earthwork owned by the National Trust.[13]
  • The stuff I strike here seems to belong elsewhere (history or ecology): Flowing north, it passes Langmead and Weston Level SSSI, where four nationally rare species of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates have been recorded,[14] and on past the pumping station at Westonzoyland, which is now an Industrial Heritage museum of steam powered machinery and land drainage, and houses most of the equipment from the Burrowbridge pumping station.[15] Identify, yes, but leave the details for later (I am following the example of the earlier SSSI, just the name, here)
  • If the river flows into the tidal moat (assume it does, as it is tidal) then that is OK to keep in the course section, but what does an undercroft have to do with the course? Again strikes here are to be moved elsewhere, not deleted, stuff in [brackets] are suggested additions As it enters Bridgwater it passes under Somerset and Hamp Bridges. [and by] Bridgwater Castle[, which] had a tidal moat up to 65 feet (20 m) wide in places, fed by water from the river.[16] Parts of the castle wall, water gate and undercroft still survive.[17] not sure the width has to stay here - could it be moved to the part about the castle later?
  • I think the whole moved sluice / clyse is a judgment call - if it is vital to understanding the course of the river (or parts of it are) keep it here, otherwise can it be moved to history?
  • The meaning of "it" is unclear here, assume it is the river, but it has no clear antecedent in the sentence The mouth at Burnham-on-Sea is a nature reserve where it flows into Bridgwater Bay on the Bristol Channel. mouths and nature reserves do not flow ;-)
  • At the end of the current Course section I would add a subsection with the discharge / flow data from above and the tidal bore section.

OK, calling it a night. Will address concerns after the Course section tomorrow. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thanks again for your comments. I was slightly confused about what had been resolved and what hadn't but I believe within the course section I have revised: the period of Roman rule, SSSI details, Bridgwater Castle, pumping station information, the unclear "it", Oath lock & I've added approximate distances. I have not done anything in relation to the flow rate measurements, as these are not discharge measurements. Chiselborough is nearer to the source than the mouth & I can't find flow rates etc at the mouth.— Rod talk 12:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the ref for the flow rate here and see it has some information not mentioned in the article. What if the subsection were called "Flow and tidal bore"? Then the text could be something like "The Parrett has only one gauging station, at Chiselborough, fairly close to the source. It measures flow from the first 29 square miles (75 km2) 74.8 of the drainage basin, or about 4.3 per cent of the total. The mean flow measured by the Environment Agency at Chiselborough was 67.45 cubic feet per second (1.910 m3/s), with a peak of 6,109 cubic feet per second (173.0 m3/s) on 30 May 1979 and a minimum of 2.5 cubic feet per second (0.071 m3/s) on 22 August 1976. Tributaries of the Parrett with gauging stations include the Yeo, Isle, Cary, and Tone.[8]" followed by the second pargraph from the current tidal bore section.
  • I looked at the tidal bore ref and it lists an author at the bottom - his name should be added to the ref here.
  • I am going to move on to the History section next, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments: I've moved the tidal bore section, as per your comments above. Pyrotec (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out) I am making some copyedits now, please revert if I make things worse or introduce errors. I see a few things I want to raise here.

  • This may be American English vs. British English, but "near to" is used twice where I would just use "near"
  • There is some WP:OVERLINKing - the rule of thumb is usually to have a link once in the lead and then at the first mention in the body of the article (plus captions or tables). Look at Bridgwater or the Abbey links, for example.
  • Made a start at removing these, probably a bit more pruning work is needed. Pyrotec (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear if the crossing and ferry mentioned here It is thought a ford, usable only at low tide, and later a ferry crossed the river near to its mouth, between Combwich and Pawlett (east bank), since Roman times. are the same ones mentioned later in the same paragraph The river crossing at the western end of the Polden Hills lay on the route of a Saxon herepath.[30] A ferry was in operation from the 13th century.[30] If they are the same, I think I would remove mention of the ferry from the first sentence to make it flow more smoothly. If these are not the same location, this needs to be made clearer.
  • Thanks for your comments. I was trying to express a belief that the ford has been in continuous use since the Roman times - the problem is lack of documentary evidence. I will re-look at what I've put in the article and rework it. Pyrotec (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now done. Pyrotec (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting with Continuing land reclamation and control of the Parrett ... is fairly long and could be split into two.
  • Done, but by all means change it if you consider that I have got the balance wrong. Pyrotec (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also a one sentence paragraph later that sould be combined with another if at all possible In the medieval era the river was used to transport Hamstone...
  • Added some new text which summarises information that appears later in more detail. Pyrotec (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a ref Under an 1845 Act of Parliament the Port of Bridgwater extends from Brean Down to Hinkley Point in Bridgwater Bay, and includes parts of the River Parrett (to Bridgwater), River Brue and the River Axe.
  • Needs conversion to other units too The river was navigable, with care, to Bridgwater Town Bridge by 400–500 tonne vessels.[6] and other places throughout the Port of Bridwater section.

I have copyedited / read closely to the end of Port of Bridgwater. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:22, 23 January 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/archive1&oldid=1078805554"