Talk:King's Sedgemoor Drain

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Somerset Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset 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.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. UK geography Low‑importance 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. Rivers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Kings Sedgemoor Drain map.

I have reduced the length from 12.5 to 10.5 miles. Otter quotes 12.5, while Skempton quotes 10.5 (8 + 2.5 through clay). Measuring the OS map suggests Skempton is right. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Eel-pass mentioned in the article the same as a Eel ladder?— Rod ^talk 19:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also should it be glass eel or glasseel - looking at Eel life history I think it should be the later (but both are used in the article) - but a quick explanation about not being a separate species & probably European eels might be helpful.— Rod ^talk 19:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the details of an eel ladder, but there is a picture of the eel-pass on the BBC Somerset ref, if that would help you to judge. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would any of the pictures at Geograph search on Kings Sedgemoor Drain be useful to illustrate this article & should it have a rivers infobox?— Rod ^talk 20:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought:

• ST3140 is looking inland at the Bristol and Exeter Railway railway bridge near Junct. 23 on the M5
• ST 3040 is an unusual view (for me anyway) showing the outlet at Dunball wharf from the river side.
• ST3934 is Greylake sluice.

The info box would help at GAN level.

Pyrotec (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the first 2 - we already had Greylake sluice. I'll work on the infobox when I next get some time.— Rod ^talk 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone mind if we remove the mention of Brue Drainage Act? The acticle originally suggested the drain was authorised by that Act, but it wasn't. I left it in, but it seems a bit irrelevant. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If its not relevant then I would agree it shouldn't be in there.— Rod ^talk 07:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering why the info about the RSPB reserve & the birds to be seen wasn't in the wildlife section?— Rod ^talk 08:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking. I put it in course, since the reserve is not actually part of the Drain, whereas the eel pass and fish were, but it makes sense to move it.Bob1960evens (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessed as C and low importance for WP:WikiProject Rivers. Could benefit from expanding into structure as suggested at project page, although some sections may not fit as this is an artificial waterway. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to see how most of the structure suggested by WikiProject Rivers would be relevant in this instance. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on King's Sedgemoor Drain. 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/20111001084328/http://www.maygurney.co.uk/docs/newsletters/12-1.pdf to http://www.maygurney.co.uk/docs/newsletters/12-1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903071909/http://www.ada.org.uk/documents/CM08_ACE.pdf to http://www.ada.org.uk/documents/CM08_ACE.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319222658/http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/G3-02-BGNW-e-e.pdf to http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/G3-02-BGNW-e-e.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 05:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]