Talk:Glastonbury Canal

On the towpath?

Does that stack up? Present-day canals have a waterway maybe 15 plus feet wide and a towpath maybe 6 feet wide. It's difficult to imagine closing the canal and building a railway requiring say 15 feet of formation on the towpath. Obviously they would have wanted to avoid any earthworks they could, but wouldn't they have been forced to drain the canal and level the towpath into the bed of it to make a flat solum?

Afterbrunel 06:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No. The railway was built along the bank. The canal was used to transport material for the railway. Could also have been used to remove spoil.Geni 21:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

? Robert Rennie

Do we have a good source naming Robert Rennie or could John Rennie the Elder have been the relevant builder/architect?— Rod ^talk 21:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Chris Handley (2001), Maritime Activities of the Somerset & Dorset Railway Bath: Millstream Books, says John Rennie. I do have a copy of Body & Gallop, but as it has no index, I need to read it first. Lets regard it as under verification. Pyrotec (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Body & Gallop says "John Rennie, son of a famous canal engineer father." (p25). Bob1960evens (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bob - confirmed. So its John Rennie the Younger. Pyrotec (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Other canals mentioned

This article mentions "two small canals were built near the North Drain".

I wonder if these were Galton's Canal and Brown's Canal?[1] Derek Andrews (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems likely from their descriptions. --TimTay (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Saxon canal

At the suggestion of User:TimTay I propose to take this section to a new article: "Glastonbury Canal (medieval)". Initial discussions here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me as my understanding is they are really talking about different eras/routes etc. I'm not sure about the new article name - but can't think of anything better.— Rod ^talk 09:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

b.t.w. in case you weren't aware, Blair's book is available online at Google Books. I read some of the stuff on the Glastonbury canal. It looks really interesting. Also if you search for "glastonbury saxon canal" at Google Books it shows you quite a number of other books with interesting and referenceable content. I suspect there is enough material to make a reasonably sizeable standalone article. --TimTay (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Just about to tidy up the article here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What else is needed before a GA nomination?

I'm thinking of nominating this article at WP:GAC. Can anyone think of anything else which needs to be done to ensure it meets the good article criteria?— Rod ^talk 17:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll finish this one soon. JAGUAR  22:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "The Glastonbury Canal ran for just over 14 miles (23 km)" - I think "just" sounds a bit informal for the opening sentence

   " In the 1750s, the town became a spa town" - link spa town

   "At the Highbridge end, the plans for a floating harbour to accommodate vessels of up to 250 long tons (250 t) were dropped" - tonnes (British English)

   " and a cavalcade from Highbridge to Glastonbury and back" - 'and back' sounds informal and vague here

   "They were declared bankrupt and Richard was removed from office as town clerk" - who's Richard?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References check out OK, reliable sources, no evidence of OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable, no edit warring

6. 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):

   No images used

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I couldn't find anything worthy enough for this to be put on hold, so I'll pass it now. It's a well written article that meets the GA criteria, well done! JAGUAR  11:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have dealt with most of the queries above, except tons v tonnes as this is always difficult as it may be long ton as it depends on the source and time period.— Rod ^talk 11:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography: circular reference

Parts of Andy Wood's book Abandoned & Vanished Canals of England, specifically his chapter on this canal and the mediaeval Glastonbury Canal (I haven't checked out any others) are lifted from Wikipedia itself and as such shouldn't be used as a source here. Deleted. More at Talk:Glastonbury Canal (medieval)#Unacknowledged re-publication elsewhere.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glastonbury Canal. 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/20131029202307/http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/downloads/Somerset_EUS_Glastonbury.pdf to http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/downloads/Somerset_EUS_Glastonbury.pdf

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)