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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shropshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Shropshire 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.ShropshireWikipedia:WikiProject ShropshireTemplate:WikiProject ShropshireShropshire articles
The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at
WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per
WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[?]
Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 800 metre, use 800 metre, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 800 metre.[?]
Watch for
redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's
redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”,
etc.
This article needs
footnotes, preferably in the
cite.php format recommended by
WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with
WP:CITE or
WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
Due to lack of in-line citations, reassessed as C-Class.
Pyrotec (
talk) 19:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Waterway under restoration template
I removed the waterway under restoration template (even though it is valid) as it messed up the page layout when the infobox was introduced.
Hmallett (
talk) 10:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Gronwen Wharf to Redwith Bridge section
This was re-watered in October 2007 but is not yet open to navigation for the following reasons.
No turning point at Redwith Bridge and 800m is too far for boats to reverse.
Bankside vegetation is not fully established.
Some additional planting was done by a group I was with from the
Waterway Recovery Group in Augst 2008.
I don't find the Route map easy to read in respect of which sections of the Montgomery canal are navigable and which aren't...
Dark blue means navigable, light blue means watered but not navigable and green means dewatered/infilled?
What does "Limit of restored canal (northern section)" mean given that it's also noted "Gronwyn Wharf Winding Hole - limit of navigation"? This section between these two points is restored but not navigable? If so, why not?
Why is the section between "Carreghofa Lane (barrier to navigation)" and "Northern Limit of Navigation (Welshpool Section)" shown in dark blue when it's presumably not navigable? Shouldn't it be displayed in light blue or green?
Why is the section between "Southern Limit of Navigation (Welshpool Section)" and "Freestone Lock" shown in dark blue when it's presumably not navigable? Shouldn't it be displayed in light blue or green?
Changes made to address the above.
Zin92 (
talk) 19:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Number of locks in Info Box
I have corrected this from 24 to 27. This now matches the route maps, the original number of locks plus Graham Palmer lock (added during restoration) and Bradshaw 1904 (allowing for Graham Palmer lock). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Zin92 (
talk •
contribs) 06:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Prospective reconnection of Canal at Ellesmere
Today I came across a front page local newspaper story that as part of the 2021 Budget the Chancellor announced the Powys County Council had succeeded in its bid to secure funding (amount stated £16M) to further restore the canal and reconnect it to the national canal network at Ellesmere. I have mentioned it in the subsection Below Frankton of section Restoration, although it might be moved elsewhere others consider more appropriate. It would be interesting if knowledgeable users (I do not live in Powys Council area but Shropshire itself) could add if they find it more background to the envisaged reconnection.
Cloptonson (
talk) 20:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)reply