Talk:Sleaford Navigation

	Sleaford Navigation has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 2, 2013 Good article nominee Listed

	This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's UK Waterways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UK WaterwaysWikipedia:WikiProject UK WaterwaysTemplate:WikiProject UK WaterwaysUK Waterways articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	UK geography Mid‑importance
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lincolnshire Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lincolnshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lincolnshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LincolnshireWikipedia:WikiProject LincolnshireTemplate:WikiProject LincolnshireLincolnshire articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Sleaford Navigation map.

Does anyone know anything about Heckington Tunnel? streetmap.co.uk shows some sort of tunnel running under the river at its 1:2500 scale, but it is not obvious on the 1:25000 map. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Sleaford Navigation/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to review this one. I'll do a close readthrough of the article's text today and/or tomorrow, noting any initial problems I encounter; then we'll move on to the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First readthrough

This looks like strong work, and I don't see many problems here that will need to be addressed. A few points below need clarification or modification:

• "the committee persisted" -- what committee?

•  Done committee introduced.

• "Sir Joseph Banks" -- is it possible to give just a touch of context on who he is beyond his name?

•  Done Details found in Australian Dictionary of Biography.

• " it did not actually close until 14 May 1881" -- unclear pronoun. The Act? The company? The navigation?

•  Done Clarified, as the company and the navigation ceased on that date.

• "the Navigation Society was wound up" -- avoid idiom here per
  WP:WTA

•  Done Not convinced this is idiom, since the Liquidation article also uses the term, but changed to "disbanded".

• "They have continued to work " -- unclear pronoun-- the Trust, the Society, or both together?

   Done It was the Trust.

• "Funding for the restoration of the warehouse and the former offices of the canal company was organised by the local council in 2002, and a further study which looked at how to provide an adequate water supply for a re-opened canal was funded by Lincolnshire County Council." -- rewrite to avoid the two uses of passive voice

•  Done Re-written to use active voice.

• "which is the current limit of navigation" -- modify per
  WP:RELTIME
  (probably use "the limit as of [date]")

•  Done Changed to "has been the limit of navigation since 1986".

-- Khazar2 (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I am only the Nominator, not the principle editor. I've passed your notes to User:Bob1960evens (talk)
--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 07:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I have now addressed all issues raised. Bob1960evens (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy response. I'll start the checklist in a moment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is excellent, and spot checks of available sources show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the list incorporation .
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline .
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as audio :
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions .	Images are well-selected, and incidentally quite lovely
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass--nice work.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sleaford Navigation. 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/20140322001317/http://www.cogglesfordmillsleaford.co.uk/cs/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=14 to http://www.cogglesfordmillsleaford.co.uk/cs/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=14

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.

• 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) 16:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]