Talk:Trafford Park/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Review by epicAdam:
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Citations: Are there any references available for the following areas? I usually like to find citations for specific dates, statistics, etc.:
- "The Manchester Ship Canal was opened in 1894, making Trafford Park a prime site for industrial development."
- Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- The first and third paragraphs under "Industrialisation"
- Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- "By 1933, over 300 American companies had bases in the park, and that number was added to when, in 1938, the Kellogg company opened a large industrial complex at Barton Dock. Kellogg's remains a significant presence in the park."
- This material was inherited from the original verson of the article, but I can't find a reliable source for it, so I've removed it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this information really necessary?: "Like any commercial enterprise, Trafford Park Estates had to generate an income for its investors; it could not afford simply to wait for prospective tenants to come forward, and so the park's existing assets had to be made use until more tenants were found."
- I've removed a lot of that. I think it's important to make the point about the existing assets being (temporarily) employed while the Estates Company was trying to find tenants, but the lead up to it is pretty fluffy, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Overall another truly excellent article. Once the few issues from above are resolved, I have no problem promoting to GA on the spot. Best always, epicAdam (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies for the problem with the quote. I was using one of those automated scripts and I didn't catch that. -epicAdam (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought that was what happening from the edit summaries.
- Thanks very much for the review. I think all of your points have been addressed now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Another impeccable article with excellent prose, sources, and illustrations. GA class indeed. Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)