Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sale, Greater Manchester/archive6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:45, 3 May 2009 [1].

Sale, Greater Manchester[edit]

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it now confroms to the FA criteria. It's well structured, factually correctly and – in my opinion – well written. Thanks to Jza84, Malleus Fatuorum, and Parrot of Doom who have all been great helping with copy editing (and Malleus since the start) and have improved the article beyond what I am capable of on my own, regardless of the outcome of this nomination. And thanks to anyone who takes time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tech. Review
Fixed, no more dab or dead links. Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Quick observations' – You give the population breakdown by religion, but not by ethnic group – if the data exists, that would probably be quite useful (something along the lines of the Demography section in Trafford). Also, "The only mosque in Trafford is the Masjid-E-Noor in Old Trafford" seems a bit out-on-its-own for someone like me who has only the haziest knowledge of where Sale is; is this a long way off? (Note: I started to read this before I realised how long it was – I'll read it properly tomorrow.) – iridescent 22:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The table in the demography section breaks down the population into white, Asian, and black exactly like in the Trafford article, although the table contains some other information too. I've added a note that the mosque in Old Trafford is about 3 miles away. Nev1 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Green Flag award is run by the Civic Trust, an "urban environment charity". As the website is run by the same people who run the award, it should be a reliable source. Nuff-respect is a sports management agency established by Lindofd Christie; as it's the companies job to represent its clients (Darren Campbell is one of them) it should be reliable for details such as the club he represented and his gold medal. As for somethingjewish.co.uk, "... how about (http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/530501.php) this independent source stating the site allows "allows Jewish organisations and community groups to distribute press releases free online"; while it doesn't say it's "leading", hopefully the fact the information comes from Jewish organisations themselves should mean it's accurate (at least for the purposes of saying under whose aegis a synagogue is under)." The dead link is now fixed (I replaced the wrong url last time). Nev1 (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the sourcing concerns out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, still waiting on the citation template conflict. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and copyedited this to the best of my ability. Some comments:

They should all be cite xxx now, there were a couple of citation templates that had been copied from elsewhere, but it didn't take long to fix. Nev1 (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead:

  • "Its fertile fields and meadows were used for arable and cattle farming." This sentence doesn't seem to flow correctly with the sentences surrounding it (i.e. it's too short). I tried fixing it myself but it made it worse...
  • I think this edit makes things better. It introduces a link with the previous sentence, and the following sentence is already linked to the one about farming as it is on the subject of the economy. Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History:

  • You've started to put hyphens in the century years, e.g. 4th-century. Why? This is not consistent with the lead in any case.
  • From MOS:NUM#Numbers as figures or words: "Centuries are named in figures: (the 5th century CE; 19th-century painting); when the adjective is hyphenated, consider nineteenth-century painting, but not when contrasted with painting in the 20th century." So "4th-century hoard" needs to be hyphenated, but "a hoard from the 4th century" does not. Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another weird use of a hyphen - "early-5th century" and there are more examples
  • Thanks for the explanation - you'll have to forgive my poor knowledge of the MOS :) Majorly talk 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"Etymological evidence in the form of field and road names, and the name of Sale itself, are Anglo-Saxon in origin and indicates the town was founded in the 7th or 8th centuries." This sentence isn't clear: is it the evidence that's Anglo-Saxon or the names themselves? If it's the evidence, then it should be "is Anglo-Saxon in origin". I'm really not sure because there's a mix of things there. The sentence needs work to clarify this.

  • True, it was trying to do too much. It now reads "Some local field and road names, and the name of Sale itself, are Anglo-Saxon in origin which indicates the town was founded in the 7th or 8th centuries", which I think is much clearer. Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first recorded occurrences of Sale and Ashton upon Mersey are in 1199–1216 and 1260 respectively." Is that an estimated set of years, or the period in which the first recorded occurrences were from? Also, how many occurrences were there?
  • It's the period the documents date from, I'm note sure why the author of the source used gave a range for one and a single year for the other (presumably because the document could not be very accurately dated). Could you explain why the number of occurrences is important, because I don't see how it is (also, I don't think that information is available). Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, if that's the best you can get, I'm happy. Majorly talk 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"In 1745, Crossford Bridge – which dated back to at least 1367[13] – was torn down." The ref should follow some punctuation, and shouldn't a dash of some sort be used there?

  • The reference has been moved. ndashes, as used in the article, are acceptable within MOS:DASH. Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"...and led to the middle classes using Sale as a commuter town – a residence away from their place of work." Can that be reworded to avoid the dash?

  • Replaced with a comma. Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The land in Sale Moor was the cheapest in the town because the soil was poor and difficult to cultivate (part of the reason the area was common land until the early 19th century)" Any way the brackets could be avoided?

*Why is Villas in quotes?

  • Because it's not villa in what (I'm assuming) everyone thinks of when they hear the word. It's perhaps unnecessary. The villas in question, while called villas by several sources, are less grand than I imagined the word villa meant (possibly what wikipedia thinks it means too juding by [[villa|its article on the subject). Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, I've removed the scare quotes. After all, the villa article does say "In the nineteenth century, villa was extended to describe any large suburban house that was free-standing in a landscaped plot of ground". Nev1 (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"...amenities such as sewers, which were built in 1875–80" Again, is that a duration, or an approximate period? If it's a duration, should it not be "built from 1875-80"?

  • It's the duration, and you might have a point about in/from so I've changed it. Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"The end of the war in 1918 resulted in a rush of marriages, which highlighted a shortage of housing" I don't see how it would highlight anything - also needs a source.

  • Marriages leads to more kids, leads to less space in the house. The reference was at the end of the paragraph and has been doubled up. Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"Six hundred incendiary bombs were dropped..." Any reason that's written with words instead of digits?

  • Because it's at the start of the sentence. MOS:NUM#Numbers as figures or words states "Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark". Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - forgive my lack of knowledge on this :) Majorly talk 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Governance:

  • "The petition was successful, and on 21 September 1935 Sale UD was granted borough status, and becoming the Municipal Borough of Sale." Doesn't make sense.
  • Removed the stray "and", should be fine now. Nev1 (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not too sure. Shouldn't "becoming" be "became"? Majorly talk 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, it's a slight change of tenses. It has now been changed to "and became". Nev1 (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd mis-typed 'became' as 'become', but I hadn't noticed this before I changed the sentence to read 'The petition was successful and on 21 September 1935 Sale UD was granted borough status, becoming the Municipal Borough of Sale' Hopefully this reads as well? Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economy:

*I can't tell what this means: "Industry was slow to develop in the area, as in most of what would become Trafford, partly because of the reluctance of the two main land owners in the area, the Stamfords and the de Traffords, to invest."

  • Talking about Trafford before 1974 is tricky because it didn't exist, hence the necessarily tricky phrase "what would become Trafford". It might seem odd to compare Sale with towns in the modern borough as opposed to its immediate neighbours, however most of its immediate neighbours are actually in the borough (on the east of the town borders somewhere that isn't Trafford) and "what would become Trafford" was owned by two main people (the Stamford and de Traffords) hence the comparison is valid. To make the sentence simpler I have split it in two, it now reads "Industry was slow to develop in the area, as in most of what would become Trafford This was partly because of the reluctance of the two main land owners in the area, the Stamfords and the de Traffords, to invest." Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Education:

*"Sale's first school was built in 1667, but it fell out use in the first half of the 18th century" Seems a bit vague, and no source.

  • Records from the period are sporadic, so not much more detail can be added. Records are so poor, the exact location of the school isn't even known. The sentence has been rephrased to "Sale's first school was built in 1667 and was used until the first half of the 18th century". Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*The last sentence of the first paragraph is a bit too general imo.

  • Agreed, it has been removed. Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transport:

  • "However the arrival in 1849 of the Manchester, South Junction and Altrincham Railway[24] sounded a death-knell for both the canal packet services and turnpike trusts, with many trusts going into terminal decline, mirroring a national trend." This sentence doesn't flow very well imo.
  • Split into two sentences. Nev1 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly talk 00:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing. There's still one point in the Governance section I'm not happy with though. Majorly talk 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Assuming no big problems emerge, I'm happy with this. A lovely article, a great job from all involved. Majorly talk 15:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My one (very) minor quibble has been resolved. Says as much about the subject as anyone would reasonably want to know, without saying too much. – iridescent 17:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as follows:

Otherwise, all other images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments ok, let's see now over the line prosewise and comprehensivenesswise.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this period, its fertile fields and meadows were used for arable and cattle farming. -I thought the adjective arable was a descriptor for the land (i.e. ability to be farmed/ploughed/sown with crops) rather than the process of farming (??) - what about just crops and livestock? or crops and cattle? or somesuch?
"Arable" is a type of farming, not a description of the land, so "used for arable and cattle farming" is perfectly OK. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have NFI so I will take yer word for it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems we're both right on looking more closely. It may be though that "arable farming" is a phrase more common in British English.[2] --Malleus Fatuorum 12:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A 4th-century hoard of 46 Roman coins was discovered in Ashton upon Mersey (a settlement now part of Sale) - not sure if parenthetical bit is redundant.
True, Ashton upon Mersey being a part of Sale isn't directly linked to the Roman hoard, but I think it needs to be explained why Ashton upon Mersey is being talked about in an article about Sale. As this is done in the lead perhaps it doesn't need to be so early in the history section, so I've removed the parenthesis. Nev1 (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After the Roman departure from Britain in the early-5th century, Britain was invaded by the Anglo-Saxons. - needs a cite hahahahaha, just having a lǎff :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sale Old Hall was built c. 1603 for James Massey.. - any reason why we have the 'c' here and not the more prosey "around"?
No reason at all, so I've changed it to "in about". --Malleus Fatuorum 12:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sale,_Greater_Manchester/archive6&oldid=1089083557"