# Talk:Barton Aqueduct

I'm storing the google books references I've used here so I don't lose them. Richerman   (talk)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=amQ9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA127&dq=Barton+Aqueduct&hl=en&sa=X&ei=13C7Ua7NMsrfPdO5gOgP&ved=0CFMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Barton%20Aqueduct&f=false
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y7c2rVtmyPcC&pg=PA22&dq=Barton+Aqueduct&hl=en&sa=X&ei=13C7Ua7NMsrfPdO5gOgP&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Barton%20Aqueduct&f=false
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ph3pAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA66&dq=Barton+Aqueduct&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4qa7UZulJuel0QXhv4DACg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=Barton%20Aqueduct&f=false
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jpsAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA369&dq=Barton+Aqueduct+cheese&hl=en&sa=X&ei=m7O7UeqqBciJPaqOgPgD&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Barton%20Aqueduct%20cheese&f=false
And this one à la Wallace and Gromit, not yet used 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1OlKAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA47&dq=Barton+Aqueduct+cheese&hl=en&sa=X&ei=m7O7UeqqBciJPaqOgPgD&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Barton%20Aqueduct%20cheese&f=false

I think this is now getting close to GA territory, just need to add a bit about the ship canal. Any thoughts?  Eric Corbett 22:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
... I've done it anyway.  Eric Corbett 14:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Barton Aqueduct/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 12:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Just some minor suggestions:

Could you give a basic location description somewhere in the article like "just to the east of the B5211 road and south of Barton Lane". [1]
There wasn't a B5211 then, and the article has geographical coordinates for anyone who's interested.  Eric Corbett 00:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, it was demolished so location doesn't matter..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
"One brought in to review the plans, at Brindley's request"  -do you mean "Once brought in to review the plans, at Brindley's request, he commented in a report to the Duke of Bridgewater that" ?
No, it refers back to the previous sentence - one of the engineers brought in... Richerman   (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a date for completion of the aqueduct?
Not an exact date but it was presumably in the winter of 1760 as it says "The arch was then covered with straw and allowed to stand until the following spring" and it was opened in July 1761. Richerman   (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
"there was a distortion of one of the arches" -not quite clear to me what this means. A curved or faulty arch?
It says later, "its curve remained irregular". I assumed it was just that - an irregularity in the curve. It's not there any more so we can only go off the sources. Richerman   (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
"The construction of the aqueduct excited great admiration at the time, and writers of the day often remarked on the strange and novel sight afforded by the canal where it crossed the Irwell. " I'd probably move that up and merge with what you say early in the section about "The structure became one of the wonders of the age and crowds came from all over the country to view it, along with the drilling of the sough for the duke's Worsley navigable levels.[14]" for structure and focus.
Y done. I thought the same thing when I re-read that section. Richerman   (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
" castle in the air" can you attribute to what Glen Atkinson calls his "castle in the air"?
The Background section already attributes "castles in the air" to the engineer Brindley called in to review the plan for the aqueduct.  Eric Corbett 00:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
So it does...♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Newell source, not sure why University of Manchester Archaeological Unit is linked when it isn't a direct link and the Manchester and Cambridge University Press isn't linked.
I'm not sure either, so I removed the link.  Eric Corbett 01:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks good, excellent work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Thanks for addressing the points. Not easy to review for Eric as I neither want to come across as excessively picky or too lazy with the review. Looks fine for GA and always a pleasure to see articles on structures which no longer exist added to wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.  Eric Corbett 11:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure Eric would expect nothing less than picky as long as it's fair. :) Richerman   (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)