Talk:River Don Navigation

River Don Navigation has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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
May 15, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
September 22, 2024	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

UK Waterways Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Waterways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal River Don Navigation is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire 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:River Don Navigation map.

New Section on "Some Bridges"

The "Some Bridges" section has been started as a list of bridges in the Conisbrough to Doncaster section of the Don Navigation. The eventual intention would be to extend the list to cover the whole length of the Navigation from Tinsley to Goole. To avoid making the article's TOC over-heavy, it is proposed to split the list into level-3 sections (eg Tinsley to Rotherham, Aldwarke to Mexborough) with the text for individual bridges being put into level-4 sections and a TOC-limit being set at level-3. It is also intended to expand the current routeplan (Template:River_Don_Navigation_map) to show the location of individual bridges. The above approach has been used in the "sister" article, River Don, South Yorkshire. Davebevis (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nav map

Do not know if this is specific to me but there appears to be a problem with the {{River Don Navigation map}} when used in the article. The template gets squashed a bit horizontally and the icons do not line up so that the lines for the canal have strange breaks in it. Keith D (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried it on three computers, two running XP at different resolutions, and one running Vista, and it is ok on all of them. I'm not sure why it might not be so on your system. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be something to do with the problems over the thumbnail server, as it is now intermittently working. Keith D (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges

Dave, I see you have been busy again, with a new section of bridges. I have altered the map by widening it, so that some of those in the Rotherham area can show railway interconnections for context. I have been thinking of nominating the article for a Good Article review, but that will have to go on hold for a bit, unless you can help. There seem to be quite a few railway facts with no refs, and I wondered what your sources were for these. Do you have access to books or atlases that could provide suitable refs for the dates? So for Midland Railway bridges, for instance, there are four dates, and the fact that it is freight only. I don't have anything that covers that sort of stuff.

Also, the Bridge Street Bridge section seems a bit sad. There is a cursory mention of Chantry bridge, which must be one of the most important bridges historically on the whole system. Without the river, the navigation would not be a navigation, so I think we need to cover that one because of its significance. There seem to be lots of facts on the ref you give, and it must have a historical monuments record, too. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, Thanks for your comments on the Rotherham area bridges. As you suggest, I will follow-up the railway references, expand the Bridge Street Bridge section (re Chantry Bridge) and perhaps include the other River Don crossings in that area. Thanks also for adding extra information and missing references to so many of "my" sections in the Don articles. Davebevis (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, Have now actioned the above. Are there any further railway references that you consider weak or missing? Davebevis (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, Thanks for that. I have added a couple of wikilinks. I also have a book arriving which should give dates for freight-only designations, and another on Sheffield Sewage Works Railways, which might give some more info on Jordan's bridge. Were you thinking of adding bridges in Aldwarke/Mexborough? Bob1960evens (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave. I have just noticed a problem with the images. They have an "Alt=Alternative Text" entry. This is to help visually impaired readers, so if there is an Alt entry, it should describe the image in general terms. (You can see it by hovering over the image). I have had a go at altering the Midland Railway bridges one. Would you like to have a go at some of the others? Bob1960evens (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Bob, (A) Re the Alt entries, it would be better if I removed this parameter entirely from all my images, rather than just repeating the caption. Do you agree with this approach? To be honest, I didn't properly understand the purpose of this parameter and just copied it, parrot-fashion, from someone else's article. (B) Re the Aldwarke/Mexborough section, I do intend to add bridges over the WHOLE length of the Don / Navigation, but this is very much a long-term project. I'd rather investigate the various areas on-site, rather than do a desk-based exercise, and this will take a long time. In terms of you seeking GA status for the article, I don't intend to do any more significant updates for at least 3 months. Davebevis (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, the Alt text should definitely not repeat the caption. Visually impaired people use a screen reader to look at the article, and so the alt text should describe the scene, as the reader will already have picked up the caption. alt attribute discusses this. I don't think alt text is essential for GA, so deleting the attribute could be a good solution for now. (but we might as well leave Midland Bridges).

Thanks for the update on the remaining section. I was going to ask if you have a professional interest in bridges, or it is just a hobby. The pictures certainly improve the article a lot.Bob1960evens (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt attribute now removed from most images in both Navigation and River articles. I don't have any professional interest in bridges. I became interested in the Don after "discovering" the Five Weirs Walk 4 years ago and since then I have set about exploring the rest of it. After doing some research on the structures, it seemed worthwhile documenting the results. Wikipedia (and your superb work on the Navigation and River) seemed the perfect vehicle for that documentation. Davebevis (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous work you are doing on improving "my" sections! Just a couple of points about the Jordan Bridge section: (a) 3rd sentence - brich s/be brick and (b) final sentence - think this should be in the next (Holmes Lock) section. Davebevis (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, You can fix spelling anytime! I am not convinced about moving Holmes bridge. It is not the same as Holmes Lock bridge, and is much nearer to Jordans lock than Homes lock. If you follow Jordans bridge due east, it crosses the river channel (here flowing south). Bob1960evens (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Flood Drain

Was trying to find out about the "flood drain" as marked on old OS maps from around 1850 to at least 1950. It seems to be the present cut of the Don from Doncaster to (where?). It's mentioned here http://www.dcrt.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/900-years-of-the-RDon-fishery-1.pdf

Is this the right page for it?Prof.Haddock (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on River Don 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://archive.is/20121224233926/http://www.transpenninetrail.org.uk/template.asp?ID=0&parentID=641 to http://www.transpenninetrail.org.uk/template.asp?ID=0&parentID=641

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on River Don 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lidar data for old northern channel of Don

Just a note to say that what I presume to be the old northern channel of the Don which emerged into the Aire west of Rawcliffe until the C17th appears to be visible via Lidar data as presented at https://houseprices.io/lab/lidar/map - esp from Bank Side House east to M18 then back via Cow Pasture to New Bridge. Does anyone know of pre-1620's maps showing the old route with any accuracy? thanks Geopersona (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria because there are uncited statements throughout the article, including entire sections. I also think much of the article suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION with a lot of one-paragraph sections. Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

River Don Navigation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains uncited statements, including entire sections. The article also has MOS:OVERSECTION and some of these short, one-paragraph sections could be merged together. Z1720 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start on reducing the number of sections, covering the Tinsley area and the Rotherham area. I'll do some more later today, and then look at the referencing. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The work to reduce the number of sections is now completed. I have added a few more refs, but will see what else I can find. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of refs to cover the bits that did not have refs previously. Bob1960evens (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 are you satisfied with the work done on the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob1960evens and AirshipJungleman29: I still think the "Structures" section suffers from oversection, making it look more like a list. I think this section should be spun out or the non-notable structures removed from this section. The "Points of interest" is also not NPOV and is a little too promotional for my liking: Wikipedia should not be stating what is a "point of interest". Z1720 (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the previous statement shows any understanding of what a points of interest table is. For a long structure (in this case 28 miles long), the coordinate feature does not help to give the reader any understanding of where this sits in the landscape. A points of interest table enables readers to see where significant features of that long structure are located. It is called Points of Interest because it uses the POI template to make that happen. Searching through all of the GA articles on UK canals and navigable rivers, and one FA, they all have a Points of Interest table, and nobody has previously interpreted them as promotional. In a small minority of cases, the section is labelled Route rather than Points of interest, and in the case of the FA (River Parrett), it is labelled Route and points of interest. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob1960evens: Who or what has determined these listed features as a "Point of interest"? Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with all the other GA and FA articles, most UK canal articles and many UK river articles, they are significant geographical features or structures along the length of the navigation, which allow the "Map all coordinates with Open Street Map" feature to show where the watercourse sits in the landscape. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.