# Talk:South Forty-Foot Drain

A selection of presentations of map information for a site is sometimes appropriate where a general selection of information is needed but where the map is used to illustrate a point made in the text, a choice is not appropriate nor helpful. Until he has seen the appropriate map, the reader has no idea what he is supposed to be looking for, so he is unable to look for it. The writer is the one who is using the map to illustrate the point made, so he is the one in a position to choose the most suitable map, its scale and any overlay. RJP 18:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the 'bot edit, which left us in the middle of The Wash, but I'm not sure of the convention for long objects: do we select one end, or the middle? At the moment it's at a fairly random point roughly at the mid point. Guidance, please. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A new page  just started gives options: the "mid point" is on the list, but additional co-ordinates of the ends should also be included. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I am proposing to remove the two sentences: In this Aerial photograph the boundary is shown in the map overlay and In this aerial photograph of The Black Sluice, the waters of The Haven (here misnamed in the map overlay, "River Witham") are pale with silt, since neither of the overlays appear to exist any more, and in the second case, the waters of the Haven are the same colour as those of the drain. I suspect the mapping info has been updated. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:South Forty-Foot Drain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
I cannot understand why the article is not full-capitalized (i.e. "South Forty-Foot Drain". The name of the drain is a proper noun, therefore it should be capitalized, per WP:CAPS. There is also inconsistent capitalization through the article. A note about the rounding in the infobox (since it is automatic, I won't question it as part of the GA review, but maybe someone could look into it: 1 ft should not be rounded off to 0.305 meters, but to 0.3 (keeping the number of significant figures to one). Perhaps some of the authors could look into the infobox and fix it up? Otherwise exitingly and very well written.
The infobox is explicitly set to 3 significant digits for some reason. Keith D (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the capitalization to South Forty-Foot Drain. Does the page also need to be renamed correspondingly? Bob1960evens (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If there is consensus that "South Forty-Foot Drain" is the correct spelling, then the article should be moved. Arsenikk (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I have moved the page, and fixed all the links, although The Haven and River Witham are still listed as being linked to the old page. I cannot find where, as I have changed all the links on those pages. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
The references should be in {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} templates.
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: 
I have put the article on hold. It is nearly there, just a few small issues and it will pass. If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to state them. Good work so far, Arsenikk (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
All has been seen to, so the article is passed. Congratulations! Arsenikk (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the article should be renamed "South Forty-foot Drain" to match the changes in the text. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

—or were you going to do that anyway? --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I have moved the page to South Forty-Foot Drain, and altered all the pages that link to it. However, The Haven, Boston and River Witham are still listed as linking to the old page, although I have changed all the links on those pages. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The links are because of the templates that are trasluded into the articles. They will correct themselves when the pages are reloaded into cache from the job queue entry that was made when you edited the templates. The time to get though the job queue depends on the number of changes queued up for action, changing a template which is transluded onto hundreds of articles can easily clog up the queue for a few hours. You can force a reload by editing the page, or by doing a null edit of the page. Keith D (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reinstated a conversion of acres to hectares as the hectare is the standard SI unit at this scale. For purposes of readers' visualisation, however, the square kilometre may have more value. Should this be reconsidered? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that the hectare is not an SI unit, however, this is not the reason I changed to square kilometres in the first place.  I'm all for the use of the hectare for areas from 10,000 to 1,000,000 square metres but the smallest area we're dealing with here is 11,000 acres it seems more sensible to convert that to 45 km2 rather than 4,500 ha. Note also that there were a number of other things that got swept up in the revert.  So I'm just going to unrevert and if we want to stick with hectares then let's only do these. JIMp talk·cont 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)