# Talk:The Serpentine

With all respect to the photographer, the Serpentine deserves some much better photos to show it off properly; perhaps showing the Marlborough Gate fountains and wildlife, and/or the Lido, boats, island and towers of Westminster.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezzabr (talk • contribs) 

Kappa 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it's actual name "The Serpentine Lake", i.e. with serpentine as an adjective (Compare say "the blue lagoon"). I mean, I know everyone calls it "The Serpentine", but was sure that was pretty much habbit etc. Like everyone calls the clock tower of the Palace of Westminster "Big Ben" even though it isn't.161.73.37.81 15:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Could the article give details of what fish, if any, are in the Serpentine? Is fishing allowed? Ausseagull (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The listing of the River Westbourne as the primary source is contradicted by the River Westbourne's article, which claims it is now from the Thames. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.50.47 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 July 2007

The discrepancy between the two articles still exists.  The text from the River Westbourne article is: "The Westbourne ceased to provide the water for the Serpentine in 1834, as the river had become polluted, and the Serpentine is now supplied from water pumped from the Thames."  Does anyone have any confirmation of the facts?  -- MightyWarrior (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
An article on the Royal Parks website says: "The Serpentine already has a high water quality, being fed by a pure underground spring". This doesn't really make it any clearer. It would seem that it is not the Thames, but could the underground river be considered a spring? Definitely needs more investigation. TigerShark (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Muddying the waters further, I think staff at the Serpentine Lido told me the water source was "a well in Kensington Gardens". I suspect the pavilion-like building just north of the Italian Fountains is a pump house. A well seems more likely than a spring, given that springs usually arise near hills. I can confirm that the Serpentine used to be fed by the Westbourne, but this stopped in the 1800s due to pollution upstream ("Faced with the ... prospect ... of a polluted lake in a ... central London park, it was decided instead to divert the river away to the east into... the Hyde Park Tunnel Sewer. This was completed in 1813..." - "Subterranean City: Beneath the Streets of London", Antony Clayton, Historical Publications, London, 2000, p34. It seems highly unlikely that the Serpentine has ever been fed from the Thames, which is tidal (downstream of Teddington), was absolutely filthy in the 1800s, and remains sporadically polluted in modern times. Copious detail appears to be in [study], but the full article is behind a paywall. Summary says source is "a well in St James's Park". 82.69.102.182 (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I've modified this article to agree with the River Westbourne one as that appears to be correct. See the sourced article at [1] or the description at [2]. Both these were referenced off this blog posting: [3] 87.115.151.135 (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with a lot of the information in this piece but am not confident of how to put it right. I lived in the middle of Hyde Park in the 1960's & '70's and researched all of this, using Royal Parks' historical sources, and can assure readers that the source of the 'The Serpentine' (not called 'Lake' for 160 years - Queen Victoria thought it 'vulgar') is the river 'Bourne'. This is the same river referred to in 'Westbourne Grove'. That area lies at the 'west' end of the river 'Bourne'. The underground river was made to  rise in the 'Round Pond' - a reservoir to power the fountains of the Italian Gardens at the head of the Long Water. After flowing through the Serpentine the water again goes underground and rises in the gardens of Buckingham Palace. From there it flows underground and rises again in St James's Park and then, finally, underground once more to the Thames. The work to create the lake was, indeed, ordered by Queen Caroline, who had not sought The King's permission and ended up having to pay for the work herself.
The Serpentine is not as deep as is claimed either. In the early 1970's it was drained and dredged, I have photo's of the drained lake and would estimate it to be only 20 feet deep.
Yes, there are fish, and fishing is permitted on the southern shore from the eastern end to the Lido. Permits are required. I shall have to look out the relevant paperwork and photo's, I can see.
p.s. I'm not very computer-literate and don't know how to discuss this (and some pretty nonsensical errors in 'Landmarks') with the contributors. e.g. Neither the Metropolitan nor Royal Parks Police have EVER had anything to do with the Ranger's Lodge! If they mean the Police Station... That's where I lived all those years! As for the bit about gays cruising... ??? Drivel! Oh, and another thing; In 'History', the celebrations referred to (Andre Previn conducting Handel's Water & Royal Fireworks music) was not for the Silver Jubilee but for the wedding of The Prince of Wales & Lady Diana Spencer. I was there! If some kind soul would contact me and guide me a bit I'd be most grateful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WestEndLovely (talk • contribs) 00:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 

There is no "River Bourne" in London—"bourne" is the Old English word for "river". The name of the river in question is River Westbourne. Although it was the original source of the Serpentine, it hasn't been for well over a century; the Serpentine is fed by water pumped from the Thames. – iridescent 10:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The sources I researched in the late 1960's (inc. Kensington Palace archives), assisted by the then Superintendent of Royal Parks, J.R.Hare ('Uncle Robbie'), refer to the water course only as 'The Bourne'. In the early 1970's, prior to the draining of the lake, I watched as large amounts of blue dye were added above the dam (The waterfall is in 'The Dell') to check that the water was following the described source. I will look out the booklet, produced to mark the Metropolitan Police's Centenary year in the Park (1967), in which an article by Mr Hare outlines most of what I have described.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WestEndLovely (talk • contribs) 13:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 

Interesting article, well done to the editors. I've reviewed it according to the GA criteria and I've put the article on hold pending a resolution of the following issues:

The lead really ought to be expanded, and ought to better summarise the article; I'd suggest merging "The lake" section into the lead as a start.
How deep is the lake?
Units of measurement are being handled inconsistently. The opening sentence contains a conversion from hectares to square metres; conversions ought to be between metric and imperial, as is done later in the article. In  the "Boating" subsection, yards are given first, then a conversion to metric. The article should consistently either give imperial or metric measures first, followed by a conversion to the other.
POV and weasel words
"... supposedly snakelike ...". Is it snakelike or not?
"... haven for London's inline skaters ...". Does that mean it's popular with inline skaters? Who says so?
"Persons of a refined nature may object .."
"The controversial Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain ..." Is it Princess Diana that's controversial or the fountain? Why?
"... the pioneering Solarshuttle ..."
I felt a bit short-changed with the "History" section. Is there nothing more that can be said? Who designed the lake for instance? Have there been no other celebrations held there since the 1851 Great Exhibition?
Was the lake created in 1730, or the 1730s, as the citation provided states?
I think that the structure of the article needs some attention; there are too many short sections/subsections and one sentence paragraphs, notably in the "Recreation" section.
I'd suggest renaming "Other Places of Interest" to "Landmarks"; it ought to have been named "Other places of interest" in any case.
I'm not a big fan of red links, although they won't affect the outcome of the GA review. Is it likely that there will be articles written on The Long Water or West Carriage Drive for instance?
I'm not happy about some of the external links. I suggest that you review them according to WP:EL. Do all of those links expand on the subject of the lake do you think? I'm not sure that they do.
"The Serpentine Gallery ... is not in fact located on the Serpentine ...". There are perhaps many other places with the name Serpentine that are not located on the Serpentine. But I struggle to see why a place that isn't on the Serpentine is included in a section called "Other Places of Interest".
"... due to the hazards of swimming in frozen water ...". Strictly, frozen means ice; suggest this is changed to cold.
The Solarshuttle can't really be considered a "place of interest", although it obviously needs to be included somewhere in this article. In the "Recreation" section perhaps?
"formal" and "informal" sports, mentioned in the "Skating and Cycling" subsection. What's a "formal" sport, what's the difference between the two?
There are some WP:MOS issues that can be easily dealt with, like the formatting of "9am" for instance. But nothing that I think would disqualify this article from GA if the above issues were addressed; the prose seems fairly clear to me, and the grammar acceptable.
I'll leave this article on hold for seven days. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As the one who did the most recent expansion of this a quick reply - I'm currently working long shifts so probably won't be able to fix this myself in 7 days - a couple of responses to the points raised above for anyone wanting to fix this:
I did have "The lake" section in the lead initially when I expanded this, but it contained too much which seemed inappropriate for the lead section but would have been difficult to separate out.
I agree with the problem re units of measurement - comes from different editors using different measurements.
I think the "supposedly snakelike" ought to stay - enough sources claim this is the origin of the name (plus, it seems self-evident), but a quick look at the map is enough to show that the lake is a long rectangle and IMO bears no resemblance to a snake, so I don't want to say "because it resembles a snake". The POV in the swimming section I agree is a problem - the editor who contributed that section I'd guess is a swimmer expressing their personal opinion - and I'll try to clean it up if I get the chance.
I deliberately haven't covered the Diana Fountain controversy, as the controversies are already covered in Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain & I didn't want to content-fork.
Aside from the link to Solarshuttle - which I think is valid as it's discussed in the article - the external links were inherited from earlier versions of the article, I'll have another look at them.
The Serpentine Gallery I think needs to be mentioned as - although not on the lake - it's in the same park as the lake and closely associated with it.
I agree about Solarshuttle but can't think of a more appropriate place to put it, since a passenger ferry can hardly be considered either "recreation" or a "landmark". I'll have a think about this.
I didn't write the sports section so can't say for sure, but I'd guess by "formal" sports the editor means the sports are amateur, but organised into leagues & played to official rules, as opposed to kids throwing a ball around a park. I'll have a think about how it can be clarified. —  iridescent (talk to me!) 15:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations to iridescent (talk to me!) on a storming, last-minute surge at the finish. Very impressive. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 19:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted as this is a GA - I am getting seriously fed up with this bot —  iridescent 17:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The Project very clearly has a problem as to what to regard as a “lake”. At the present time we have everything from an artificial fenced reservoir with armed guards, to a totally artificial, early-day water park in London, with piped in water from who knows where (no one knows even in 2008). This is all becoming more than a little preposterous! 
What are we to experience next, a professionally perfect 20 page posting from the great Disney Corporation, on the technological marvels of Bay Lake, Seven Seas Lagoon, Blizzard Beach, and Typhoon Lagoon in Orlando? Well, why not? The London water park is nothing but part of an early day Disney World and we have given this thing an GA rating! My friends, we must get a grip here and get in the game!
Rather than suggest arbitrary limits for a sound lake definition, I would propose that the idea of a separate “Reservoir Project” be immediately advanced and expanded to include all artificial (man-made) bodies of water of whatever size. Call it Reservoirs and Artificial Bodies of Water or, whatever. Lake Central (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lolololol.. Did David Icke name this "lake?
UnionBild (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

? It's called that because it has a serpentine waviness. Paul B (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

For years I had assumed the Serpentine was almost shallow enough to stand up in the middle of it, so I was amazed when I recently discovered it was up to 40 ft deep. Even more amazed was I to read here that "The lake is relatively shallow, with a maximum depth of 40 feet". Unless the general consensus says that a depth 40 ft for an ornamental lake in a virtually flat park is "shallow", which would surprise me, I intend to remove the "relatively shallow" part. In fact, I am even tempted to replace it with "surprisingly deep". 109.153.233.36 (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Several paragraphs of this article are unreferenced, which is not to the standards expected of a Good Article. Chris857 (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

See my comment on the GA review page - you appear to have invented a non-existent criterion and then demanded this article complies with it. There isn't and never has been a requirement for non-controversial statements to be referenced at GA level; 2(a) is about giving bibliographic information for every book used, not giving a source for every piece of information used. – iridescent 19:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
This "every paragraph needs at least one citation" nonsense appears to be taking an unhealthy hold. Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless I missed it, I can't see any dimensions ! Length ? Widths ? The Yeti (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)