Talk:River Weaver

message: #Article needs to be massively expanded. 
#It should make more use of sections. 
#"Route Map" needs to be added. 
#More photos need to be added. 
#References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.) 
 DDStretch  (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment Report 

message: * Suitably referenced, with inline citations
* Reasonable coverage - no obvious omissions or inaccuracies
* Defined structure, with adequate lead
* Reasonably well written for grammer and flow
* Supporting materials - Infobox, map, images, POI table
* Appropriately understandable
Rated as B-class for UK waterways project.
Bob1960evens (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating

message: I have removed the following, because the web reference does not link to anything that mentions Frodsham, and I cannot find any info on the RWNS site or the web to support it. Nor does it appear on the wayback archive. Please feel free to add the information back in if you can find a suitable reference.
:However, the River Weaver Navigation Society are pressing for Frodsham cut and lock to be reopened, and to redevelop the Frodsham wharves on the Weaver. Frodsham is an attractive small town, but has no particular focus of interest to visitors. The proposers of the new "waterfront" believe that it will be a popular attraction to boaters and gongoozlers alike.
:
Bob1960evens (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Frodsham development

message: I have extended to route diagram to include the aqueducts of the Middlewich Branch, the Shropshire Union main line and the Llangollen canal. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. Thanks Bob. Pyrotec (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also added a little more to the lead. Have you any suggestions as to how much bigger it should be, in view of the GA assessment comments? Bob1960evens (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:Lead should both introduce the article (which it does well) and summarise the main points. It does provide some summary and I've awarded it GA, but perhaps a bit more summary would be good, especially if WP:FAC is being aimed for. Its got Salt, T&M canal, Weston canal and Anderton Boat Lift by name. Possibly, expand the (unnamed) listed structures and tourism and (say) add the equivalent of another paragraph or double the final paragraph (~ 33% increase). There are no hard and fast rules, and its personal opinion anyway. Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to GA

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on River Weaver. 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/20110314183419/http://www.weaversailing.co.uk/ to http://www.weaversailing.co.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)