![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
There is another article on Britain's canal network which lists all Britain's canals, and details abandoned and proposed routes. It has a brief history at the top, my question is, is it better to add a note to that short history (something like for a more detailed history go here), or to incorporate this page into the other page? Grunners 12:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I prose a Waterways of the United Kingdom project (along the lines of the UK Railways Project). Please add your support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Waterways of the United Kingdom. Andy Mabbett 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The current page says "In the past few decades, many hundreds of miles of abandoned canal have been restored, as British Waterways has come to see the economic and social potential of canalside development."
My feeling is that BW are being given too much credit here. Any comments? How could this be better phrased to acknowledge the vision and work of canal societies and WRG? Derek Andrews 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Apart from the question of how much credit is given to BW, the next paragraph asserts a POV as to the effects of restoration/regeneration on industrial archaeology
Mayalld 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The issue of the conservation of industrial archaeology has always been an issue with regards to restoration and maintenance, and is wider than the the few big sites cited. For instance, the replacement of rack and pinion paddle gear with hydro-elastic gear, the choice of materials used in restoration, construction of modern road bridges etc.
Restoration is also sometimes in conflict with nature, such as great crested newts and bats, as well as other users such as fishers. Derek Andrews 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a verifiable source for this POV. As far as I can see from the talkpage, one sentence appears to be the reason for the {POV} flag; and that is an unreferenced comment on industrial archaeology. Much of this talkpage, is also based on on unreferenced POV's. Pyrotec 21:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)"The issue of the conservation of industrial archaeology has always been an issue with regards to restoration and maintenance, and is wider than the the few big sites cited. For instance, the replacement of rack and pinion paddle gear with hydro-elastic gear, the choice of materials used in restoration, construction of modern road bridges etc".
OK, I've attempted a rewrite, which tries to be WP:NPOV, and which expands the section slightly. It isn't referenced yet, but I've added {{ fact}} tags to show where I think we need references. I won't de-tag it myself, but if others agree that it is more neutral, can they remove the tag? Mayalld 21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
this is really intersting, although it could be more understable and easy to read without too much grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.165.124 ( talk) 19:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there an article on the boat people? I don't see much reference to them here. What about including something like:
The church of St Thomas the Martyr, Oxford, under the curacy of John Jones, acquired in 1839 an innovative "Boatman's Floating Chapel", a houseboat to serve the families working on the river and the canals. [1] This boat was St Thomas' first chapel of ease; it was donated by H. Ward, a local coal merchant, and used until it sank in 1868. It was replaced by a chapel dedicated to St Nicholas, which remained in use until 1892. BrainyBabe ( talk) 21:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This section mentions canals in Roman times, and refers the reader to the Roman Britain article. But that article doesn't even mention canals or dykes. The Romans definitely used canals for transport as well as irrigation, albeit on a small scale.-- Shantavira| feed me 19:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The article makes no specific mention of the Lee Navigation, though it does mention various other navigations or canalised rivers. Given its early development (for example the first pound lock in England in 1577) and huge industrial importance of the Lea Valley from the 18th to the 20th centuries this seems a little odd. Pterre ( talk) 12:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A mention, or at least a 'see also' for the Grand Contour Canal would seem to round off the story.-- Robert EA Harvey ( talk) 18:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is written in plain language and is easily comprehensible to the average reader. It puts the topic neatly in its historical context and lays out the structure in a methodical fashion. The overview covers the main points to be addressed in the article, and provides appropriate links to other relevant wiki-pages; this is useful because it does not unnecessarily lengthen or complicate the article at hand. This again allows for easy reading: not a tremendous amount of scrolling through only tangentially related information is required.
The references for this article leave something to be desired, and this article has been flagged by Wikipedia as needing additional sources for verification. The bibliography for this article is fairly extensive, and indicates that many useful topic-specific books were used in the writing of the article. However, the footnote references are not particularly useful, as they refer to many of the same esoteric books, which would probably be difficult to procure for the average scholar who wishes to verify the source materials cited. For example, not all the books cited have even the ISBN provided, or a page cited, which makes sifting through these sources cumbersome.
The illustrations for this article are relevant and contemporary, but number under 5. There are no real illustrations per se, but rather illustrative photographs. This is a shame, as the topic of canal technology and development lends itself to illustrations.
The topics covered by the article seem to be fairly extensive without getting off-topic at all. As mentioned previously, the article does put British canal development squarely in various different historical contexts. The inclusion of several facts which reference a 1978 Reader's Digest article are the only parts of this article that I would deem frivolous. The main criticism to be made here is that perhaps the scope of the article is slightly too narrow. There is little discussion, for example, of the relationship between the transportation of goods through the canals, and the boom in goods being produced in the Industrial Revolution. What this example is intended to show is that the narrow scope of the article allows only for a basic contextualization of the British canal system, and does not incorporate other important historical factors.
This is also evidenced by the lack of illustrations. Locks are a key part of canal operation, and would do well to be be mentioned in the article. Furthermore, the lock system would be an excellent topic to use illustrations of in order to demonstrate the technology to the reader. This could of course be incorporated without a generally discussion of the lock technology, but rather highlighting any developments during the time period and geographic area being discussed. Additionally, geography is an important aspect of this article; it would be very helpful and user-friendly to include some kind of geographic illustration to show the development of the canal system over time.
I believe that the treatment of the material here is quite similar to a regular encyclopedia, with a few caveats. While the scope is fairly narrow, with major related topics being covered in a separate section, as in an encyclopedia, the scope is actually more narrow than that of a regular encyclopedia. However, upon closer consideration, this is a topic that is unlikely to even be covered in its own section in an encyclopedia, but would more likely be included in a larger article on canals, or the industrial revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-13Petesg ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I recall reading once that there was a period of resurgence on the canals during the 1920/30's, which isn't mentioned in the article. The advent of diesel engines meant that canal boats became more powerful, allowing them to travel faster and pull a full-size butty. Some very powerful short 'tug boats' could even pull up to half a dozen butty boats. Suddenly the canals became potentially viable again and the government began a programme of widening locks and improving the system.
This is briefly referred to in the article, but only in the context allowing bigger boats onto the canals. I think this may be an oversimplification. My understanding has always been that a prime reason for widening locks was actually to allow a narrow boat, and its butty boat, in the lock at the same time.
For a number of reasons, the resurgence was short-lived and the programme of improvements abandoned - but surely this period warrants its own section? Is there someone knowledgeable on these matters who could write a referenced section about it? Obscurasky ( talk) 09:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
From when do "canals" date in the UK? Roman is claimed, as are medieval. The trouble with these is that they're drainage, possibly irrigation, or improvements to uncanalised navigable rivers. Now I'd agree that these belong in these article as background to canals constructed for transportation, but should the (unsourced) literal term "canal" be applied to them, as at present? Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of the British canal system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
It's redundant to decribe a majority as a major majority in this context. "major majority of canals" should be changed to "majority of canals" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C405:700:4C79:3BD8:3443:6285 ( talk) 12:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
There is another article on Britain's canal network which lists all Britain's canals, and details abandoned and proposed routes. It has a brief history at the top, my question is, is it better to add a note to that short history (something like for a more detailed history go here), or to incorporate this page into the other page? Grunners 12:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I prose a Waterways of the United Kingdom project (along the lines of the UK Railways Project). Please add your support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Waterways of the United Kingdom. Andy Mabbett 14:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The current page says "In the past few decades, many hundreds of miles of abandoned canal have been restored, as British Waterways has come to see the economic and social potential of canalside development."
My feeling is that BW are being given too much credit here. Any comments? How could this be better phrased to acknowledge the vision and work of canal societies and WRG? Derek Andrews 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Apart from the question of how much credit is given to BW, the next paragraph asserts a POV as to the effects of restoration/regeneration on industrial archaeology
Mayalld 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The issue of the conservation of industrial archaeology has always been an issue with regards to restoration and maintenance, and is wider than the the few big sites cited. For instance, the replacement of rack and pinion paddle gear with hydro-elastic gear, the choice of materials used in restoration, construction of modern road bridges etc.
Restoration is also sometimes in conflict with nature, such as great crested newts and bats, as well as other users such as fishers. Derek Andrews 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Please provide a verifiable source for this POV. As far as I can see from the talkpage, one sentence appears to be the reason for the {POV} flag; and that is an unreferenced comment on industrial archaeology. Much of this talkpage, is also based on on unreferenced POV's. Pyrotec 21:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)"The issue of the conservation of industrial archaeology has always been an issue with regards to restoration and maintenance, and is wider than the the few big sites cited. For instance, the replacement of rack and pinion paddle gear with hydro-elastic gear, the choice of materials used in restoration, construction of modern road bridges etc".
OK, I've attempted a rewrite, which tries to be WP:NPOV, and which expands the section slightly. It isn't referenced yet, but I've added {{ fact}} tags to show where I think we need references. I won't de-tag it myself, but if others agree that it is more neutral, can they remove the tag? Mayalld 21:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
this is really intersting, although it could be more understable and easy to read without too much grammar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.165.124 ( talk) 19:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there an article on the boat people? I don't see much reference to them here. What about including something like:
The church of St Thomas the Martyr, Oxford, under the curacy of John Jones, acquired in 1839 an innovative "Boatman's Floating Chapel", a houseboat to serve the families working on the river and the canals. [1] This boat was St Thomas' first chapel of ease; it was donated by H. Ward, a local coal merchant, and used until it sank in 1868. It was replaced by a chapel dedicated to St Nicholas, which remained in use until 1892. BrainyBabe ( talk) 21:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This section mentions canals in Roman times, and refers the reader to the Roman Britain article. But that article doesn't even mention canals or dykes. The Romans definitely used canals for transport as well as irrigation, albeit on a small scale.-- Shantavira| feed me 19:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
The article makes no specific mention of the Lee Navigation, though it does mention various other navigations or canalised rivers. Given its early development (for example the first pound lock in England in 1577) and huge industrial importance of the Lea Valley from the 18th to the 20th centuries this seems a little odd. Pterre ( talk) 12:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A mention, or at least a 'see also' for the Grand Contour Canal would seem to round off the story.-- Robert EA Harvey ( talk) 18:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is written in plain language and is easily comprehensible to the average reader. It puts the topic neatly in its historical context and lays out the structure in a methodical fashion. The overview covers the main points to be addressed in the article, and provides appropriate links to other relevant wiki-pages; this is useful because it does not unnecessarily lengthen or complicate the article at hand. This again allows for easy reading: not a tremendous amount of scrolling through only tangentially related information is required.
The references for this article leave something to be desired, and this article has been flagged by Wikipedia as needing additional sources for verification. The bibliography for this article is fairly extensive, and indicates that many useful topic-specific books were used in the writing of the article. However, the footnote references are not particularly useful, as they refer to many of the same esoteric books, which would probably be difficult to procure for the average scholar who wishes to verify the source materials cited. For example, not all the books cited have even the ISBN provided, or a page cited, which makes sifting through these sources cumbersome.
The illustrations for this article are relevant and contemporary, but number under 5. There are no real illustrations per se, but rather illustrative photographs. This is a shame, as the topic of canal technology and development lends itself to illustrations.
The topics covered by the article seem to be fairly extensive without getting off-topic at all. As mentioned previously, the article does put British canal development squarely in various different historical contexts. The inclusion of several facts which reference a 1978 Reader's Digest article are the only parts of this article that I would deem frivolous. The main criticism to be made here is that perhaps the scope of the article is slightly too narrow. There is little discussion, for example, of the relationship between the transportation of goods through the canals, and the boom in goods being produced in the Industrial Revolution. What this example is intended to show is that the narrow scope of the article allows only for a basic contextualization of the British canal system, and does not incorporate other important historical factors.
This is also evidenced by the lack of illustrations. Locks are a key part of canal operation, and would do well to be be mentioned in the article. Furthermore, the lock system would be an excellent topic to use illustrations of in order to demonstrate the technology to the reader. This could of course be incorporated without a generally discussion of the lock technology, but rather highlighting any developments during the time period and geographic area being discussed. Additionally, geography is an important aspect of this article; it would be very helpful and user-friendly to include some kind of geographic illustration to show the development of the canal system over time.
I believe that the treatment of the material here is quite similar to a regular encyclopedia, with a few caveats. While the scope is fairly narrow, with major related topics being covered in a separate section, as in an encyclopedia, the scope is actually more narrow than that of a regular encyclopedia. However, upon closer consideration, this is a topic that is unlikely to even be covered in its own section in an encyclopedia, but would more likely be included in a larger article on canals, or the industrial revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-13Petesg ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I recall reading once that there was a period of resurgence on the canals during the 1920/30's, which isn't mentioned in the article. The advent of diesel engines meant that canal boats became more powerful, allowing them to travel faster and pull a full-size butty. Some very powerful short 'tug boats' could even pull up to half a dozen butty boats. Suddenly the canals became potentially viable again and the government began a programme of widening locks and improving the system.
This is briefly referred to in the article, but only in the context allowing bigger boats onto the canals. I think this may be an oversimplification. My understanding has always been that a prime reason for widening locks was actually to allow a narrow boat, and its butty boat, in the lock at the same time.
For a number of reasons, the resurgence was short-lived and the programme of improvements abandoned - but surely this period warrants its own section? Is there someone knowledgeable on these matters who could write a referenced section about it? Obscurasky ( talk) 09:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
From when do "canals" date in the UK? Roman is claimed, as are medieval. The trouble with these is that they're drainage, possibly irrigation, or improvements to uncanalised navigable rivers. Now I'd agree that these belong in these article as background to canals constructed for transportation, but should the (unsourced) literal term "canal" be applied to them, as at present? Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of the British canal system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
It's redundant to decribe a majority as a major majority in this context. "major majority of canals" should be changed to "majority of canals" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C405:700:4C79:3BD8:3443:6285 ( talk) 12:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)