Talk:River Parrett

I'm not sure about the tributaries. River Cary is mentioned in the header, but not in the list of tributaries, or on the river template. River Brue is mentioned, but links to the Castle Cary - Glastonbury - Highbridge River Brue, which has its mouth near the mouth of the Parrett, but is hardly a tributary. River Isle is mentioned on left bank, but is on same side as River Tone and Taunton Canal. Any comments, or shall I alter it? Bob1960evens (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It was me that added the Geobox (about a year ago) & I may well have made errors, so as far as I'm concerned feel free to go ahead & change it.— Rod ^talk 11:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There was an error in the River Cary article, which I've now changed. The water from the River Cary is now diverted into King's Sedgemoor Drain which joins the Parrett at Dunball. The Cary originally joined the Parrett near to the River Tone.Pyrotec (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Help! The River Infobox has suddenly gone very large. I haven't altered it, and all the previous versions also show it large, but I am sure it was not at the time. (It now seems to be a general problem with lots of Rivers.)

It's Template:Geobox River rather than a simple Infobox - probably a problem with the box code if it is happening to other rivers. User:Caroig created them & understands the code - probably worth dropping them a line to ask if changes to the geobox would have produced this effect. Could also be a server problem as the main server has just been locked. Seems to be fixed now— Rod ^talk 21:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have also corrected two dates and two times in the Bore table, but the times for November and December appear to be wrong. The Bore is normally between 3 and 11 minutes before high water at Avonmouth (which is a standard port in the Admiralty tide tables), but the Nov and Dec times are way out. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the times for Nov and Dec to 2 hours later, as that corresponds to the tide tables.Bob1960evens (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Format / Structure

A lot of progress has been made on this article recently. It having been assessed initially as Start-class, then C-class and now B-class; and it is probably not far off GA-class, but I guess it needs some more work and a period of "stability" before it can be considered.

I was planning to add a section/subsection on bridges, as particularly downstream, over time, these defined the limit of navigation; and downstream the Parrett had loops that were removed by "cuts". So I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers - which suggests that bridges (and loop removal) could go in a section called "course". However, that leads to further "difficulties: this article appears to be internally consistent, but it almost totally "ignores" these guidelines; and is different in structure from, e.g. the River Severn, another B-class article, which possibly conforms much closer to the guidelines, but has a different balance to this article. Interestingly there are very few GA-class River articles and the three that I have looked at don't follow the guidelines all that closely, i.e. Category:GA-Class River articles. So the "24,000 dollar" question is, do we have an appropriate structure?Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that this article has improved greatly. I would argue for the use of the UK guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers to enhance consistency (having supported the development of those guidelines I would say that!). If the guidelines don't work for a particular river they can be ignored or, more appropriately, discussed to improve the guidelines for others. I don't think the rivers at Category:GA-Class River articles can be used as comparators as non of them is in the UK. I would look at River Avon, Bristol as a possible comparator with various uses (navigation etc) and changes of course over the years. Why don't you put the issues onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers or for wider discussion onto Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography to help achieve consistency?— Rod ^talk 08:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rod. I will sit on this for a few days so that I can clarify my thoughts; but I do like those suggestions. Also, I'm tempted, in the case of this article to start at the mouth and go upstream - another reversal of guidelines.Pyrotec (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Although the guidelines suggest the course section should go downstream, they suggest that the lists of tributaries, settlements and locks/weirs/etc should go in the upstream direction, so it may not be so unreasonable to go upstream.Bob1960evens (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Course - call me pedantic, but...

The section covering the river's course has two problems. It doesn't cover the whole river, it only goes as far as Langport, and it is also backwards - describing the course from mouth to source. This means that Drove Bridge is described as the first bridge, whereas it should be the last. See River Thames, River Severn (which doesn't describe the actual route but still lists tributaries from source to mouth), River Avon, Bristol, River Mersey etc. --TimTay (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I both (slightly) agree and (mostly) disagree. I see no reason why the River Parrett cannot be described in a direction from its mouth travelling upstream. That was the way I was intending to do it -see "Format / Structure" above. If it upsets you that much, we can reverse the order of the River Thames and River Severn articles!!!! They are obviously sub-standard in this respect, i.e. navigation is virtually ignored in both articles, yet it has been vitally importance for millennia. Langport was in effect the limit of navigation for reasonable sized boats, even allowing for transhipment at Bridgwater Town Bridge.Pyrotec (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So shall I go and change the Nile, Amazon and Mississippi while I'm at it? I am more than happy to reverse the existing text in this article, but would need help to add extra information about the river between its source and Langport. --TimTay (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I don't see any need to reverse the order; and none of those articles are GA-class. My presumption is that this article will go for GAR when it is considered ready. There is only one GA-class river article in the UK and that is River Irwell. There are only eight in total Category:GA-Class River articles. I suspect that I would be willing to award GA-class to this article, as it is currently written, provided it meet the relevant criteria, if and when it goes to WP:GAR. (I'm currently doing my 25th & 26th GARs at the moment, so I have some experience of this process, but not as much as some other reviewers).Pyrotec (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The four FA class river articles (White Deer Hole Creek, Larrys Creek, Balch Creek & Johnson Creek (Willamette River)) and the three GA class river articles (River Torrens, Columbia River & River Irwell) that I can see all describe river course from the source to the mouth. Describing the course of a river as anything but source to mouth is backwards and counter-intuitive. Give the precedent set by the FA/GA articles I think it should be properly described in this article. What do other editors think? --TimTay (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is good this debate is occurring before GAR nomination. I would suspect any reviewer reading this & possibly looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers (which I pointed out in the Format/Structure discussion above), would ask the same questions. I am not aware of anything specific to the Parrett which would argue for anything other than the direction of flow to be the order for the course - but I'm always open to being convinced. I would be happy to help with the course between it's source & Langport & don't think it would be too great a piece of work to change the current text in the Course section - we could do this in a sandbox if people didn't want to "mess up" the article during the process.— Rod ^talk 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone read these articles, including this one, or this is abstract theorising? The section in the River Parrett, called "Course" is all about obstacles to navigation, i.e. bridges, shoales, etc; and a perfectly logical argument can be made for considering up-stream or down-stream passage. It happens to be written from a up-stream passage, as is the schematic map. This particular section bears no relationship to the sections on "Course" in the other rivers articles, which is why I suspect no one has read them. The guidance Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers is an honest attempt by (almost) one editor to provide guidance on the topic; and much of it exists only in bulletpoint form. There is very little discussion about it in the associated talk page and it would be very easy to pick holes in it (I do not wish to do so here). I certainly don't consider the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers sufficient or even adequate to ensure an article on e.g. the Thames or the Severn got through GAR or FAC. The four FA-class articles almost totally ignore shipping, but three of them consider recreational use, such as canoeing, so they set no precedence. The River Torrens only discusses bridges in Adelaide. All of them are good articles, but they are all different. I see no reason why the current "course" section cannot remain in the article as it is, but the title is wrong - it is about navigation and river crossings. What is needed is a section on "river course" as per the FA and GA; and a major expansion of the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers, its good and honest, but not really fit for purpose.Pyrotec (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on your comments on the difficulties for shipping etc - should that material be in the subsection entitled "The Parrett Navigation"? I will have a go at a first draft for course in a Sandbox & let you comment before including it in the article.— Rod ^talk 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I started the course section following discussions we had in August, and used the upstream direction because the guidelines suggest that tributaries, settlements, locks and weirs should go in that direction. Also, I have the information to write the article in that direction, and it seemed easier to add more to the end as I found out further details than to add it to the start of the section. I am aware that the next section contains a number of mills, but have not yet obtained adequate documented sources to add that information. The alternative (for me) to starting at the mouth would have been to start at Langport, and that did not seem sensible. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Could we just rename the section 'Civil Engineering', 'Structures', or 'Features'? Bob1960evens (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

None of these questions can be answered by reference to Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about rivers. Perhaps the way forward is to remove all of this information from the River Parrett and put it into other articles on say the Port of Bridgwater and/or the Bridgwater Navigation; and then link it back into the River Parrett via summaries and {main}. Pyrotec (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater & I think they are relevant to the history of the river. I've now got the kids into bed & thrown together something on the "course", with some of the bits I find interesting. See User:Rodw/Sandbox/Perratcourse & feel free to edit, reject, or plunder for other things as you feel is appropriate. I'm happy to have this rejected in total or in parts as others want.— Rod ^talk 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've read it and its interesting. We could, if everyone is agreeable, substitute that for the existing "Course" section and copyedit it later. Presumably we keep the existing "Course" section and move it elsewhere, under a new name/copy into one of the subsections in the "History" section? Bob's future work on mills would presumable go in the same location? Presumably the schematic diagram has to be inverted as it is not "politically correct" in these intolerant times?Pyrotec (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also read it, and like it. I try to produce the maps so they vaguely reflect the geography, so the mouth is a lot more north than the source. I think the idea of having south at the top is a bit wacky. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice one Rod. It gets my vote. --TimTay (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OK as everyone seems to like it I've now copied in the new course section & renamed the old section to bridges - what do you think?— Rod ^talk 09:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What else for GA nomination

This page now seems to be stable following the recent flurry of edits - what else do people think woud be needed before a GA nomination?— Rod ^talk 09:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the course section needs a few tweaks. Because of the amount of detail on the warehouse at Langport, would that paragraph be better in the (renamed) "Bridges and Structures" section, and for the same reasons, would the Westonzoyland pumping station details be better either in "Structures" or perhaps "Flood Prevention"? Also, do we have any sources for the technical details of the pumping station, the Brigwater trade figures, etc.? Bob1960evens (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with the proposed moves for the warehouse at Langport & Westonzoyland pumping station - do you want to do them or shall I? I don't have anything further on Brigwater trade figures. Do you mean the Burrowbridge pumping station? The bit in course on "Port of Bridgwater" could probably be merged with the section of that name.— Rod ^talk 18:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It was the technical details of the Westonzoyland pumping station, all of which are currently unreferenced, as is the 103,613 tons for Bridgwater trade figures. I was wondering where the information came from. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The info re Westonzoyland pumping station could be refed to Pumping station web site sub pages. I believe the trade figures for Port of Bridgwater come from Farr, Grahame (1954). Somerset Harbours. London: Christopher Johnson. p. 116. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) but I would have to get it back out of the library to check.— Rod ^talk 08:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

References

The Stagg/Hydrology reference needs repair by someone who understands it. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this (& doing lots of others). I've removed the Stagg ref & the related sentence & found an alternative source for the other text on drainage engineering etc.— Rod ^talk 11:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

River Parrett

Being pedantic in this instance, could the Parrett Navigation schematic be improved (corrected)? There are two disused outlets, in parallel, from the dock to the River Parrett, each with one lock: a narrow lock on one outlet, and a broad lock on the other.Pyrotec (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The schematic now shows three locks. Is the one on the left before the docks or after? There is certainly a stop lock after the basin, but evidence for one between the basins is not easy to find. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The set up is variously described as dock and tidal basin or inner and outer basin. My left lock was intended to represent a lock between the dock and tidal basin. I could go and have a look tomorrow (Monday), it must at least 15 years since I was last there.Pyrotec (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a picture of the gates (only one set in view) on page 87 of Fitzhugh (1993) and this is what google maps currently show:

[1] Pyrotec (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another link [2] it appears more stable than the last one.Pyrotec (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked the map to use the DOCKS symbols, so it is a bit more obvious. If you are not convinced, please revert. Bob1960evens (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:River Parrett/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Initial review

This article appears to have the makings of a GA, it has a wide-ranging scope and is reasonably well referenced; but I suspect that the WP:Lead will need a bit of work to bring it up to scratch.

I've expanded the lede, but I'm still not sure it summaries the whole article - another set of eyes would be good.— Rod ^talk 11:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to do the lede last, and it is much improved, but the geometry of your 'course' looks a bit rotated. On a small scale map the flow looks north and then northwest from Dorset to Somerton to the mouth.Pyrotec (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

main review

Starting the main review now; which I proposed to do section by section. Pyrotec (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Course: This section covers a wide area in a reasonable manner, but I think the prose could be improved. As it is a point-by-point narrative, the junction with the Bridgwater Docks / Bridgwater & Taunton Canal has been missed out; and the King's Sedgemoor Drain appears before Dunball Wharf, not afterwards (see schematic). We aught to have an in-line citation verifying the claimed source of the river and for the Fuller's earth between "Merriott and West Chinnock and Chiselborough" (Grammar !!) I may come back to this section later.

I think that the latest changes, whilst clearing these defects may have 'muddied the water'. The canal was connected to the Parrett, via locks, at the Docks - although these are no longer in use. The new reference(s) may have been explaining why the canal was connected to the Parrett at the docks (locking down) rather than at Huntworth (on the level), or may be explaining why the locks remain out of use. The canal was connected, but the articles referenced seem to contradict this.Pyrotec (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The ref I looked at was talking about them not being connected for vessels & restricting tourist use. Another was talking about salt v fresh water & I may have muddled them.— Rod ^talk 13:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have altered the tenses of the Canal bit, as the Huntworth basin and lock were used from 1827 to 1841, rather than being proposed. I had the same problem on the B&T Canal article of finding a credible reason or ref for the Bridgwater Dock locks remaining blocked up. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've found a possible ref (Murless (1983)) and Somerset Libraries list 26 copies of the original edition and 6 copies of the revised edition - I will attempt to borrow a copy on Monday.18:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• History: First paragraph has no citations. The sentence about Hamstone could do will some expansion, i.e. how did the stone get to the river and were did it go to.

 Done citations added + a bit more on Hamstone for churches.— Rod ^talk 11:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tourism: A reference is need for the Parrett Trail - quick search on google indicates that there is a book and a web site.

 Done several refs now.— Rod ^talk 11:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• WP:lede: Much better. Possibly a minor mention of the 'bore' and a concise note on the Parrett Navigation and the various canals upstream of Bridgwater.Pyrotec (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary

The article has been considerably improved over the last few days. I'm therefore award GA-status.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A Good, wide ranging, Article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thanks to everyone and especially to those whose efforts over the last few days have clear the 'obstacles from the path' of this article become GA-class.Pyrotec (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I also add thanks to Pyrotec & everyone else who has helped to improve the article.— Rod ^talk 09:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

fall rate in lede

When trying to expand/improve the lede I noticed the fall of the fiver is "1 foot per mile, or 20 cm per km" - 1 foot per mile is 18.93 centimetres per kilometre - should we changed the number of significant figures & I can't work out a suitable convert template for this - any ideas?— Rod ^talk 08:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to help at Template talk:Convert#foot per mile, or cm per km the convert template now handles this & I've added to the lede - but I did notice that the article includes some miles/km and some km/miles which I will look at later.— Rod ^talk 08:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done I think I've made consistent all mi/km and km/mi in convert templates.— Rod ^talk 11:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wonder if 19 cm per km implies an accuracy which is not intended. (I have just noticed it is now 18.9 cm, which is definitely not intended by the imperial measure). Bob1960evens (talk) 11:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right. My error. Made less accurate.— Rod ^talk 11:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Burrowbridge Pumping Station

Is this a museum, as stated? The Westonzoyland museum site suggests it is not, but is owned by a haulage company. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Leete-Hodge, Lornie (1985). Curiosities of Somerset. Bodmin: Bossiney Books. p. 82. ISBN 0906456983. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) says yes but that is a 1985 book so may well have changed. IoE calls it Saltmoor Pumping Station at record but no help on status - probably best to remove the ref to museum.— Rod ^talk 11:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed the tense, and mentioned most of its contents are now at Westonzoyland. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Clyse or Clyce

Does anyone know the correct spelling, or is this a local term used verablly & therefore either is correct - but we do use both spellings in the article.— Rod ^talk 15:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Both are correct, and the spellings have local variations. The local OS maps use two-'c's and Williams (1970) uses one-'s'&one-'c'; but any given article should only use one spelling (unless they are direct quotes from inconsistent sources).Pyrotec (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)