# Talk:Grand Western Canal

I think this article is looking really good.
In the "Construction" section the article discusses "rock cuttings at Holcomb, from which springs of water gushed". I can't find any evidence of  village spelled like that in the area. Neither Holcombe, East Devon or Holcombe, Somerset seem to be in the right place. Does anyone have any further info or a grid ref etc on which to base an article?

It was Holcombe Rogus— Rod talk 12:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, would it be a good idea to add a note on the articles for relevant sites on the canal, to add a note saying that the canal passed through the village etc - I've done this for Nynehead & Holcombe Rogus but it would be useful elsewhere.— Rod talk 08:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There is loads of info, photos diagrams & animations etc on the Nynehead boat lift at "The Boat Lift on The Grand Western at Nynehead". Nynehead Village Web Site. Retrieved 2007-12-06.— Rod talk 09:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead a bit in line with WP:LEAD. Are there other things which people still feel need to be worked on, or do we feel it is ready for nomination at WP:GAC?— Rod talk 18:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you leave it another day or so. I've borrowed a copy of Hadfield's Canals of Southern England.  This book is not referenced in the article, but it has quite a bit of coverage. I may not necessarily add anything, but some reviewers look for stability in an article, so don't want them to start looking just yet.Pyrotec (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you find anything useful? Would it be OK to put this up for GA tomorrow?— Rod talk 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
OK put it up for GA tomorrow and I also aim to finish what I started tomorrow as well.Pyrotec (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
Just needs some expansion and a few prose tweaks
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Details:

Lede, I'm unsure about the tense in the first sentence. "... Canal is a canal in the UK which ran..." doesn't agree in verb tense. Not sure which tense you wish to go with, so didn't change it myself. As it is now, it reads awkwardly.
Lede, Every sentence but one in the lead starts with "The..." Consider rewording to avoid repetition.
Lede - I'd like to see just a bit more information in the lede. It feels skimpy compared to the length of the article.
History section, second paragraph, consider cutting a bit of the detailed description in the second sentence, as it is now a bit of a run on sentence.
History section, Construction subsection. The last sentence of the first paragraph probably doesn't need six separate citations, since it isn't a particularly contentious statemtne. Consider cutting a few. Same for the last sentence of the second paragraph, the "Bridges... " probably doesn't need three citations.
Same section and subsection, the last paragraph is only one sentence, which gives the prose a choppy feel. Consider merging with another paragraph in the section or expanding.
Really neat article, just needs a few tweaks and some expansion on the lede to pass.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 20:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and comments (and edits). I've attempted to expand the lead and change some of the awkward grammar. I've also done some edits to the history section - hopefully showing that each of the citations was to a different bridge. If there are further tweaks which you feel would help to improve the article please let us know.— Rod talk 21:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks great! I'm going ahead and passing it. It was SOOO close, just needed those little things that someone who didn't write the article will notice. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How does the second (detailed) map correlate to the first (general plan) map? I am guessing that the green section is the same on both, but the first map doesn't actually say this. Is there a caption missing somewhere?
EdJogg (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It does help if you read the article and the titles; perhaps an explanation is needed. Its actually a bit more than the green bit in the middle of the first map (it includes some of the light and dark blue bits at the bottom). The first map is a schematic of a plan to link the Bristol Channel with the English Channel, that was never completed. The second is a schematic map of the Grand Western Canal. The second map can be regarded as a "magnified version" of the "middle part" of the first map. The "Common link" link to both is the Bridgwater and Taunton Canal and the River Parrett, at the top of the second map, and Tiverton Basin, at the bottom of the second map. I did not produce them, I'm merely answering the question.Pyrotec (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes when I'm in proof-reading mode I find a need to query details that may be clear to me, but not necessarily obvious to someone who knows less about the subject. In this case I am reading the first paragraph, then looking at the first map and thinking "where's the Grand Western Canal?" (the map is labelled "The Grand Western Plan").
Now, I've realised that part of the problem results from the initial text describing the route from south to north (ie 'downhill'!) whereas the map displays north to south. (I've now fixed that.)  But I still look and expect to see "Grand Western Canal" somewhere on the map, showing how it fitted into the wider network. Maybe I'm making a bigger thing about this than I need to (seems to be a growing tendency with me on WP!).
EdJogg (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Would it help if the first plan was renamed to something like "Plan to link Bristol and English Channels", that might remove some confusion; and then bring the Grand Western Canal map nearer the top of the article? Pyrotec (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It's worth a try. That certainly sounds like it'll do the trick. You could probably get away with the two maps butting against one another too.
EdJogg (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I have altered the plan, to label the open section, the tub-boat section and the authorised section, and added Topsham as the location of the junction with the River Exe. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if not following proper protocol for commenting on wikipedia, but my first time... I'm manager of the GWC Country Park and want to point out some typos and inconsistencies with the second, detailed map.  I guess a decision has been taken not to list all of the footbridges and farm accommodation bridges, but there are some road bridges which have been omitted.  Although Tiverton Road is listed as a road, the bridge (Tiverton Road Bridge) is not mentioned. The same applies to the North Devon Link Road, which is carried over the Canal by Boehill Bridge.  Between Boehill Bridge and Sampford Peverell, Buchkland Bridge has been omitted.  There is a mistake in the spelling of Crownhill Bridge.  Link to a map of the canal below. Hope thats helpful...
[1]https://devoncc.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicDocs/Environment/Canal/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2FPublicDocs%2FEnvironment%2FCanal%2FGrand%20Western%20Canal%20Map%202020%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2FPublicDocs%2FEnvironment%2FCanal&p=true&ga=1 159.15.129.67 (talk) 10:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Battens Bridge also omitted 159.15.129.67 (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Grand Western Canal/CommentsTalk:Grand Western Canal/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 18:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC).
Substituted at 16:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Grand Western Canal. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930081209/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=352088 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=352088
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930081311/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=95882 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=95882
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930081405/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=352087 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=352087
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Grand Western Canal. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930080843/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=95380 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=95380
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930080953/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=95362 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=95362
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930081021/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=352085 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=352085
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930081130/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=95949 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=95949
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930081629/http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=270944 to http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?id=270944
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I have just been looking at old maps for Taunton (the 1889-1890 1:2500 edition), and there seem to be two sections of canal labelled Grand Western Canal. The first runs west-to-east just to the south of the railway. There is a disused aqueduct, remains of a lock, and a disused lock, before the canal joins the Bridgewater and Taunton just below Firepool lock. The second is to the west of Taunton, and runs in a north-west to south-east direction, to join the River Tone just downstream of French Weir, at the site of one of two bathing stations in the vicinity. There are again the remains of two locks close to the river. I believe the article covers the first, northerly, route, but there is no mention of the second route. I will see if I can find out anything more. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hadfield says (p97) "500 yards of the Tone were put under the company's control." could this be the section you are referring to?— Rod talk 08:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I have found some stuff in Harris which explains the two routes, but am busy adding page numbers to the refs at the moment. Once I have done that, I will see if I can write something sensible. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Grand Western Canal. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rchs.org.uk/trial/6-1%20Boat%20lifts%20GWC.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.devonomics.info/sites/default/files/documents/Devon%20%26%20Somerset%20Flood%20Results%20Final%20Report.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.middevongazette.co.uk/Water-pours-repaired-section-Tiverton-canal/story-20752611-detail/story.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.middevongazette.co.uk/Narrow-boats-return-journey-fixed-canal/story-20829229-detail/story.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927082401/http://www.discovertiverton.co.uk/attraction_details.asp?attractionID=48 to http://www.discovertiverton.co.uk/attraction_details.asp?attractionID=48
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Grand Western Canal. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130715175815/http://www.tivertonian.co.uk/tivertonian-news/tivertonian-events/item/680-turf-cutting-marks-start-of-grand-western-canal-repairs.html to http://www.tivertonian.co.uk/tivertonian-news/tivertonian-events/item/680-turf-cutting-marks-start-of-grand-western-canal-repairs.html
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I have, without prejudice, requested that the WP:GA status of this article is reviewed. The GA passed in 2008, and just yesterday I removed one section of completely unsourced content that was present at the point of the article passing GA. With that in mind it seems pertinent to offer this up to GAR to ensure that it (still) meets appropriate standards. MIDI (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)