Talk:Cheadle Hulme/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shopping Area[edit]

The article presently claims that Cheadle Hulme is notable for its small shopping area. Does this mean that it is notable for the fact the shopping area is exceptionally small :-) ? Or is the shopping area notable for some other reason? The fact it has a shopping area in itself doesn't seem particularly noteworthy! Best wishes, Cambyses 11:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence does go on to say that the shopping area and the viaduct are on the motif, which makes it noteworthy, however we could remove the word small. Could anyone provide a photo of the motif? --Olive Oil 06:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schools[edit]

I've put the schools into a table by category - I'm not sure if it looks good, any comments? --Alex talk here 09:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks quite good, but it does leave quite a bit of white space, might work better in rows, or sub sections. --Olive Oil 15:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged by category - still a lot of white space though... --Alex talk here 23:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That looks a lot better now --Alex talk here 11:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murders[edit]

Not a very cheerful subject but I can remember a few in the area.

Arshad Family[edit]

I cannot find any articles on wikipedia on last years awful murder of the Arshad family in Cheadle Hulme. Alex 10:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one could be made on the father. He seems notable enough, particularly if he's convicted. Majorly (o rly?) 10:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Neilson[edit]

Donald Neilson, the Black Panther, stole firearms in Cheald Hulme. I think this was from the gunshop at the far end of Station Road near the old police station.Alex 10:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder near the Seven Arches[edit]

There was another serious murder in the 90s I think near by the Seven Arches.--Alex 10:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German Bomber Pilot[edit]

A German bomber was shot down in Bramhall in the second world war. The German aviator was held at Cheadle Hulme police station. Need reference, interesting fact.Alex 10:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers[edit]

Neither of those newspapers are really specific to Cheadle Hulme - one is for Macc, and the other is for Stocky. You could just as well write about The Times and The Guardian on the Cheadle Hulme page. Chris Martin (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistory?[edit]

The article doesn't mention whether there's any evidence of human activity in Cheadle Hulme before the Roman period; Pastscape.org.uk also draws a blank and it usually notes finds such as flint arrowheads, although it may not be comprehensive. Does the Squire book (what looks like the best bet for this kind of information) mention whether there have been any prehistoric finds from Cheadle Hulme? If not, it should be made clear that the Roman activity is not just the first evidence of "civilised" (a loaded term) to occupy the area, but the first evidence of any human activity in the area. Nev1 (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if the Squire book draws a blank, Arrowsmith's Stockport: A History will be worth checking out; I think it covers the entire borough of Stockport rather than the settlement, so should have some useful stuff for the article in general. Nev1 (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the Squire book is a complete word for word copy (or thereabouts) of the Lee book. The Lee book mentions an "old stone cross, set up originally by some Celt or Saxon..." but the Squire book refers to it as a Saxon cross, without mentioning Celts. The book you mention looks interesting, I'll have to check it out. Majorly talk 14:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Saxons in England were post-Roman, but Celtic is a vague term. If it's a cross, it's most likely to be post-Roman and have Christian connections.{{cn}} I'm not convinced about Manchester-2002's claim that Cheadle Hulme effectively means "wood wood"; when reading around Timperley in Trafford, the -leah suffix was given as the Old English for "a clearing". A previous discussion on WT:GM (I'll try to find it) pointed out that the site unfortunately contains a lot of inaccuracies and should be phased out wherever possible. The Arrowsmith should help replacing Manchester-2002. Nev1 (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A clearing" sounds more familiar, from when I researched this area a few years ago. Majorly talk 14:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the discussion. Nev1 (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

There's a little about Cheadle Hulme from SMBC here and a tiny bit of material about Cheadle parish "cheadle%20moseley"#s12 here. Other sources worth sifting through would be here, at Google Books. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made use of the SMBC site already, but the other sites are worth checking out. Majorly talk 01:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Railways[edit]

The third paragraph of the economy section might belong better in the transport section (minus the last sentence). I think the last sentence of the paragraph should be left behind as a summery, with a little change so it reads "The arrival of the railway in the 1840s brought new employment opportunities in towns such as Stockport and Manchester that had not been possible before". Nev1 (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, done this. Majorly talk 18:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Initial review[edit]

The article appears to be at or about the right level for a GA-class article and appears to be adequately referenced. There appear to be a few minor areas where the statements and/or prose need tightening up or clarification; and I'm no sure about the scope. As always, I intend to leave the WP:lead until last:

  • Geography -
  • It would be helpful clarify whether bricks and tiles are still made (the sentence could be read to suggest that they are not now made) and the timeframe of this activity.
  • The source text reads "This [the clay] has long been dug locally for the manufacture of bricks and tiles." (Arrowsmith, 1997). I take this to mean it is still currently being used, but otherwise, I'm unsure myself. Majorly talk 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some clarification of 'National' average (for climate) is needed, is it the average for England, Great Britain, British Isles, etc?
  • I've now explicitly mentioned in the article that the national averages referred to England. Nev1 (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 DonePyrotec (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Economy -
  • Fire fighting, what is written is probably techncial correct, but is it sensible? Cheadle Hulme got it's own fire station in 1960, before that it used Cheadle's and before that buckets of water. So when did they stop using buckets of water?
  • I think it might be worth removing the sentence about the buckets, it's a bit obvious and doesn't necessarily add much to the article. Nev1 (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed, I agree it's a bit generic. Majorly talk 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 DonePyrotec (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two paragraphs about rural countryside and silk weaving are interesting and are probably true, but they are 'floating' in the air with no anchorage in time. Obvious questions are when did silk weaving start and what's its duration? The paragraph seems to imply that it stopped in the early 20th century, but perhaps that was referring to the walking to Macclesfield bit? Also, when did the rural countryside bit about growing its own food and getting water out of wells and ponds become less significant?
  • No year or period was given in the source text for when it started, so unfortunately I cannot answer that, but can only assume it was similar to the rest of England.
  • I hopefully clarified this a bit. Again though, the source texts give little on when things actually happened. I'd guess the building of the railway was the main cause of the area becoming suburban as opposed to remaining rural, but this is simply a guess. There's nothing to work off here, unfortunately. Majorly talk 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK  DonePyrotec (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transport -
  • I'm not convinced that the information provided is historically accurate; it appears to be based in modern namings with a total disregard of historical accuracy. There were numerous stations with Cheadle in their name and it is not clear to me which are in Cheadle Hulme, Cheadle Heath, and/or Cheadle.
  • For the purposes of this article, only the two stations in Cheadle Hulme (the original one and the current one) are actually discussed. Majorly talk 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 DonePyrotec (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first railway was the Manchester and Birmingham Railway; and it appeared to have opened a Cheadle Station in 1842, which closed in 1845. It was replaced by a new station in 1845, built by the London and North Western Railway (L&NWR), which was initially called Cheadle, but was renamed Cheadle Hume in 1866. There was also a L&NWR station called Cheadle which opened in 1866.
  • This is all discussed in the article, apart from the last parts which I had no sources for. It only mentions the line names, not the companies that opened them. Majorly talk 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, then. Your first station appears to be the 1842 M&B Cheadle station that closed in 1845; and your current station appears to be the 1845 L&NWR Cheadle station that was renamed Cheadle Hulme in 1866; and my ref for that is Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC 60251199. OL 11956311M., page 58. Pyrotec (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. What is the "next railway"? Majorly talk 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that I did not finish that sentence. The North Staffordshire railway was the next to be built, followed by the Cheshire Lines Committee lines.Pyrotec (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a Cheadle Railway which opened in July 1878, which is not mentioned, it closed in 1882 and was reincorporated in 1888 as the Cheadle Railway Mineral and Land company.
  • It's not mentioned because it's not in Cheadle Hulme. Majorly talk 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 DonePyrotec (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "Cheadle Hulme is situated near the A34 bypass, and international transport link Manchester Airport. It forms part of the A5419 and B5095 roads" trying to say?
Well presumably the first part is accurate, i.e. "Cheadle Hulme is situated near the A34 bypass, and international transport link Manchester Airport" - presumably 'and' is correct? So what is "it" (Cheadle Hume is part of the A5419 and B5094)?Pyrotec (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK  DonePyrotec (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buses only get a mention in their post-privatisation form, e.g. Stagecoach. I assume buses existed before that operated by SELNEC and presumably the County services before that?
  • I have mentioned a bus; there is nothing else in my sources about buses. Buses operated by GM Buses/SELNEC etc did operate in the area, but again, I have no sources for this. However, it is fairly trivial to mention what company operated what buses. I think it is fine to simply mention that buses operate in the area, which I have done with sources. Majorly talk 20:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK  DonePyrotec (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention of proper stage coaches and turn pike roads, was Cheadle Hulme on any turn pike road?
OK, I'll give it a  DonePyrotec (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevl: I think there was a turnpike road in Cheadle (though not Cheadle Hulme). It ran from Wilmslow to Manchester, and I believe it's the modern-day Wilmslow Road. Majorly talk 20:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Road lighting is a 'bit floating in the air', e.g. "For a long time there was little roadlighting; each lamp had to be manually lit by a lamplighter each night". Presumably there is electric road lighting and the lamplighters are long unemployed, when?
 Done21:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Eduction
  • Since it was thought necessary to discuss the implications of the Education Act 1870, what were the effects of the Education Act 1944 and subsequent Education Acts on Cheadle Hulme?
  • I'll have to see if I can find anything for this. Majorly talk 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will drop this one -  DonePyrotec (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It affected Cheadle - the first grammar school after the act was built there, according to the article. The school no longer exists though. I don't believe the acts massively affected Cheadle Hulme. Majorly talk 22:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1944 act lead to the creation of Grammar Schools, Technical Schools and Secondary Modern Schools; the next one in the 1960s? was Comprehensive Schools. It did affect it, but you don't go into that level of detail; and I'm not pursuing it anyway.Pyrotec (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only grammar school was Moseley Hall, which was right on the border of Cheadle/Cheadle Hulme. The secondary modern was built in 1936, eight years before the act. It became comprehensive in the 1960s I believe, before massively expanding and changing its name in the 1970s. Majorly talk 19:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead appears to adequately cover the article, but does the article adequately cover the lead (see below)?
  • Scope of article
  • The first and final sentences of the WP:lead mention 'suburban' and state: "Today it is a thriving suburb {of presumably the town of Stockport} with its own.....". Possibly this is true, but it hardly appears to be covered in the body of the article. Its not mentioned in History, other than the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport; possibly it can be deduced from Government; it seems to be ignored or possibly contradicted in Demography, which states: "Cheadle Hulme is part of the Greater Manchester Urban Area, and is within the Manchester Larger Urban Zone and the Manchester Travel to Work Area". The other sections appear to ignore suburb of (?). Is the Town Stockport one of the unmentionable aspects of Cheadle Hulme, or is it just 'sexier' to link it to Manchester?
  • It's not contradicted - it's additionally part of that area, as well as the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport. The town of Stockport is a separate thing from Cheadle Hulme. The Metropolitan area just happens to share its name with Stockport and have its town hall based there. I don't know what you mean when you ask if it's "unmentionable" - it's discussed several times in the article. And like Stockport, Greater Manchester is not the same as Manchester. Greater Manchester covers Manchester and a large area around it, including Cheadle Hulme. C.Hulme is part of the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport and Greater Manchester both at the same time. There's nothing contradicting, or ignoring. It's simply pointless to repeat the same information over and over. Majorly talk 20:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me restate the question here for my benefit. The final paragraph of the lead states that Cheadle Hulme is a suburb. A suburb of what? My copy of the 10th edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines suburb as: "an outlying district of of a city, especially as residential one". I can understand the difference between Manchester and Greater Manchester, and I can also understand that Salford can have suburbs and Manchester and have suburbs, and that they are all in Greater Manchester. By a process of elimination I can deduce that Cheadle Hulme is not a suburb of Bristol, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, etc, but what is it a suburb of?Pyrotec (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too sure. If Stockport was a city, then it would be Stockport (Stockport is bigger than many cities) I would assume. Majorly talk 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the start of that first sentence was changed to: "Today it is thriving with its own schools, open parkland,..." this arguement would disappear; unless the description "thriving" needed to be modified as a result of gready bankers.Pyrotec (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 DonePyrotec (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are told that water was taken from wells and ponds (in Economy); I doubt this still the case, and presumably mains water, sewage and electricity is provided?
  • Unless this is the case (which I doubt) it's probably a little too much detail. Nev1 (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think we can assume the houses (assuming people live in houses and not mud huts) have plumbing etc. Majorly talk 19:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment was not indended to be sarcastic (or however it may have appeared to others). I don't live in Greater Manchester, I live in Somerset, so if Cheadle Hume was down here I would be expecting a comment along the lines - Cheade Hulme was connected to the mains electricity in (or by) 1920 by the South Western Electricity Board and to mains water and sewage by Bristol Water Company. For Cheadle Hulme it was probably North Western Electricity Board. However, I regard these as outstanding noncompliances.Pyrotec (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell there is no mention of when electricity, plumbing etc came to the area in any of my sources - and I have pretty much exhausted all the books on the local area and beyond; they are unfortunately no longer with me, as I had to return them today. As Nev1 says, this kind of thing is trivial for a place like this. Somerset, perhaps you may have a point, but it's unimportant for this article, which in my opinion is highly detailed already. If it was even too trivial to include in a FA, then it has no place here. I don't know what else to say about this. I wouldn't know the first place to look to find this kind of thing out anyway. Majorly talk 20:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right about overdetail, but electricity came in 1924 and electric street lights in the 1950s - 30 seconds on google produced [1]. As you have removed the bit about lamplighters, I can drop electricity.Pyrotec (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a homemade site from the geocities era. I wouldn't use it as a reliable reference. I am of course aware of that site, being first to come up in a google search. Majorly talk 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1920s is the right period for electrification of rural centres of populations such as this. In the case of isolated farms, some still don't have it, or they got it in the 1950s/1960s at their expense. But I'm not pursing this one.Pyrotec (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your wells and ponds sentence has citations, but it is the only mention of water. If you could rephrase, tone it down, or remove it entirely I don't need to ask about mains water. P.S. In the Victorian era the City of Birmingham built, under Act of Parliament, reserviors at Elan Valley and piped the water to Birmingham. Any authority within 30 miles of the pipe line could demand water. City of Manchester did the same, so the Cheadle area migh have been using Manchester water for tha last 100 years (but I have no citations for Manchester).Pyrotec (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I would disagree personally. I think it adds nicely to the discussion of life for people around that time. Majorly talk 19:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This looks like another WP:GM, WP:FAC, so I'm going to pass it, warts and all, i.e no more free consultancy.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA.Pyrotec (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed review (and apologies for trying to rush you along before - I admit that patience is one of my weaknesses...) Majorly talk 19:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Towards FA[edit]

I think that this article has all the material needed to meet the FA criteria's "comprehensive" criterion, and is pretty close to meeting all the others as well, but I think it would struggle with the infamous 1a—"its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard", which is a hard one to meet.

My overwhelming impression is that it suffers from the same problem that dogged the Sale article through six FACs, too much disconnected detail. I think, if anything, some material needs to be removed rather than anything added. I think the first paragraph of the Transport section is a good example. It may be, for example, that the information about the smithy—"The first cars appeared in Cheadle Hulme in the early 1900s, but until the 1920s, horse-drawn vehicles were the main form of transport. Horses were shoed in a smithy in the Smithy Green area"—can be justified, but it just seems tagged on, unintegrated. Similarly "Ravenoak Road was Pump Lane, named after Pump House"; the narrative is disjointed.

I'll be interested to see what Nev1's view is, but I hope my few comments are taken in the spirit in which they're offered, and I'll be happy to help where I can. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nev1[edit]

History
  • A quote from Cheadle's Domesday entry is used ("a wood three leagues [about 9 miles] long and half as broad and a Hayes and an area of Hawkes and one acre of meadow") but I don't think it's clear what is meant by "a Hayes and an area of Hawkes". The area of hawkes sounds pretty straight forward, but I'd like some confirmation, but the Hayes has me stumped. If Squire doesn't give an explanation, it might be worth trimming the quote, I think removing the bit after "half as broad". I also added a conversion for what a league is as it's an archaic term, but it is only rough (not sure if it should be in kilometres or miles, or both using the {{convert}} template).
  • "which was now worth £30 per annum": does that mean the manor produced profits of £30 per year or is it just the income?
  • "The estate was reunified on the death of the last of the Vernons": this is the first time the Vernon family has been mentioned, I think that either a note needs to be added as to when they gained ownership of the manor or to simplify things you could rephrase it not mention them.
  • Presumably the Vernons were succeeded by the de Bagulegys? There's still a bit of a jump from the Vernons to the de Bagulegs. Nev1 (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were yes, but it's not a big jump: Clemence, Isabel's mother inherited the estate, as mentioned previously, and the Vernons took part of it. Later, the Baguleghs took it back. There's no mention of who held the estate at that point, though I'd guess it was probably one of the John Savages. Trouble is, no dates have been provided for this information. Majorly talk 14:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I've struck this point. Nev1 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only daughter of Clemence and William de Bagulegh, Isabel de Bagulegh succeeded her parents": presumably she succeeded them as owner of the manor, but this does need to be stated.
  • It's tempting to add a sentence on the Manchester Blitz when WWII is mentioned to give the relative peacefulness of Cheadle Hulme some context, but I'm not sure. As Cheadle Hulme is fairly close to Manchester, did it suffer any accidental bombing? I know Sale did, so I thought it might have happened here.
  • All that Squire says on this (from memory) is that Cheadle Hulme escaped being badly damaged. Whether this was meaning any damage at all, or just a little damage, is unclear. Majorly talk 13:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, probably not worth going into any more detail then. Nev1 (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Governance
  • It's not important to this article, but do you know much about the Hundred of Stockport? Although it's supposed to be in Cheshire, it's missing from Hundreds of Cheshire.
  • I think it would be worth mentioning the number of Conservative and Labour councillors that represent the town on the borough council. It could be tagged onto the last paragraph and would make it look a bit more substantial.
Demography
  • Vision of Britain should have some figures for the social class of Cheadle and Gatley, with the caveat that it's not for Cheadle Hulme specifically we should be able to add a sentence or two on the changing social structure of the town. I'll try to do that myself.
Economy
  • "Silk-weaving remained commonplace until the early-20th century": I presume it eventually died out when the industry became more centralised and industrialised, but it might be worth explicitly mentioning it.
  • "In the mid-19th century, the Adamson family opened one of the earliest shops in the Smithy Green area": this feels like it's left hanging slightly, is Smithy Green now one of the town's shopping centres?
  • Yes, it is. It's also where the high school and one of the churches are, and it's one of the busiest areas. I don't think it's known as Smithy Green, just as Church Road. Majorly talk 13:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some stats such as economic activity (and perhaps industry of employment) could be gleaned from the ward profiles on statistics.gov and I think they'd be worth adding.
General
  • Done, hopefully not over the top though. Majorly talk 14:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only got half way through the article, I hope to finish going through it tomorrow. I agree with Malleus that in some places there is a little too much information, I know it's a problem I've struggled with as I find myself wanting to give everything some context. I reminded myself that I've got to be realistic, it can't be done, that's why we have wikilinks and if the reader wants to know more they can go down the library and read the local history books in the bibliography. It's difficult to pin it down, but for example "In the mid-19th century, the Adamson family opened one of the earliest shops in the Smithy Green area", what's significant about the Adamson family (ie: I don't think they need to be mentioned). It's little things which can build up. But I am optimistic, the article's in good shape and I think with some fine tuning of the prose it stands a good chance at FAC. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily the family that are important, but the fact they opened one of the earliest shops is. Majorly talk 13:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transport
  • It's difficult to put my finger on, but it just feels like there's a bit much here. For example, do we need to know what the roads used to be called?
  • I've had a go at trimming the first paragraph, and I think it reads a bit better. The bit about horses being shoed still feels a bit disjointed though, as does the bit about the bus. Take a look and see what you think, feel free to revert it. Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only thing I'd disagree with there was the mention of Prince Albert travelling down a road and it being renamed in his honour. Majorly talk 17:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well as I said, feel free to revert. I think the bit about the Roman road and the Saxon naming should be mentioned after the first sentence though to get a broadly chronological order (although trying to be chronological in this section is not easy when it makes more sense to deal with each type of transport separately). Nev1 (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notable people
  • Seems fine, I'm not a bit fan as they attract vandalism but I know a lot of articles have them. User:Dweller did once mention that it's difficult to guarantee the comprehensiveness of the these sections in line with the FA criteria, but because there's the precedent of articles such as Oldham with these sections, he wouldn't oppose. Also, it's probably worth copying over some of those references to list of people from Stockport (it's looking a bit thin).

The information in the article seems comprehensive to me, I think the only issue to worry about is criteria 1a. Nev1 (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Cheadle Hulme is part of the Greater Manchester Urban Area, and is within the Manchester Larger Urban Zone and the Manchester Travel to Work Area." This doesn't feel right at the end of the demography section, perhaps it should be integrated into geography? Also, I don't really see the importance of the travel to work area. Nev1 (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1801 the population was 971 and had risen to 2,319 by 1851." This is illustrated by the table in the demography section, so perhaps isn't necessary in the history section. Nev1 (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only mention that as an example to show the rapid growth in population. Majorly talk 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, that's a good reason. Nev1 (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

District[edit]

In 1974 Cheadle Hulme "became a district in its own right"? What definition of district are we using here? The normal definition, as applied to a metropolitan county, would be metropolitan borough, which Cheadle Hulme certainly did not become. In 1974 it ceased to be part of Cheadle and Gatley Urban District. It became part of the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport. Any attempt to define it as having become a district in that year, whatever meaning is given to district, is opinion and unverifiable. Perhaps it would be better to say simply that it became part of the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now reads much better.Skinsmoke (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheadle Buckeley[edit]

Wasn't the parish containing Cheadle itself named Cheadle Bulkeley (not Cheadle Buckeley)? See A Vision of Britain Through Time : Quote from Imperial Gazeteer of England and Wales 1870-72. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that's a typo, fixed. Thanks, Majorly talk 17:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free images[edit]

I have come across several copyright-free images of Cheadle Hulme, available on the Stockport image archive (though not all are copyright-free, several are though). What do you think would be good to illustrate in this article with older images? Majorly talk 19:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Cheadle Hulme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cheadle Hulme. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cheadle Hulme. 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: 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) 11:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cheadle Hulme. 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: 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) 23:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheadle Hulme. 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: 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) 10:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cheadle Hulme. 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: 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) 09:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheadle_Hulme/Archive_1&oldid=1136607266"