Talk:City of Salford/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:City of Salford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Second opinion
From "Governance", subsection "Council": "Their aims are to improve health; reduce crime; encourage learning, leisure and creativity; invest in young people, promote inclusion, creating prosperity, and to enhance life." This seems like an unnecessary soundbite. The council's mission statement is already quoted in the preceding sentence. Axl (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The second sentence was included as an explanation of what the mission statement entailed, although I have removed it since it is not entirely necessary. Nev1 (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From the same subsection ("Council"): "An urban district was a type of local government district which covered an urbanised area." Is it really necessary to explain this when there is a Wikilink in the preceding sentence? Axl (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * During the FAC for Trafford it was agreed that a brief explanation of an urban district would be beneficial; since it is only one sentence I think it should stay. Nev1 (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Again from "Council", the "Party political make-up" table shows Independents represented with a white box. However this is the same colour as the redundant boxes. Can the Independents be changed to a different colour so that the seat is actually visible in the table? Axl (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It worked in firefox but for some reason not IE7, has now been fixed. Nev1 (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In the "Electoral Wards" table, City of Salford is included, but without any area or population. Is this really a separate ward, or perhaps it should not be in the table at all? Axl (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The original plan was to use it as a total, but as you said, it's not actually a ward so I've removed it. Nev1 (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From "Coat of Arms": "The coat of arms of the City of Salford depicts a shuttle...." Is this a weaving shuttle? Axl (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, link fixed. Nev1 (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In the "Education" section, is Bnos Yisroel a single school, or more than one? The text indicates singular while the table shows plural. Axl (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is in fact plural although as you will see below this is no longer an issue. Nev1 (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From the "Education" section: "In 2007, Bnos Yisroel School was the most successful school in Salford at GCSE, with 86% of the pupils gaining five or more GCSEs at A*–C grade." However the table indicates that Beis Yaakov High School is the most successful. Axl (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem here results from the use of two different sources, the BBC does not list schools with fewer than 30 pupils. The prose has been adjusted and now mentions Beis Yaakov. Nev1 (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment

 * The text in Education claims that the University of Salford has 20,000 students, the graphic claims 19,000, and this link says just over 14,000. They can't all be right, surely? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the Salford SU webpages here it's 19,000. Richerman (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 19,000 seems to have been agreed on, thanks Richerman for sorting that out. Nev1 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

GA failed
I have failed the article for GA status. No-one has attempted to address my comments above. After these issues are dealt with (and I am happy to engage in discussion), please consider nominating the article again. Axl (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

GA passed
Nev1, thank you for tidying up the outstanding problems. I am happy to assign "Good Article" status to City of Salford. Axl (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

GA delisted
I have boldly delisted this article from WP:GA. While it mostly complies with the manual of style, and at first glance looks ok, there are numerous issues, mostly with issues of comprehensiveness and broadness, a key factor in the Good Article criteria. These issues absolutely must be addressed before the article can be promoted. Quite simply, the history section is FAR TOO SHORT for a city of this size -- it's only two paragraphs, and there isn't even a link to a separate history article! The geography section is also incomplete as well, lacking information on neighborhoods and climate. The government section is rather poorly organized and doesn't flow very well -- too many subsection headers, the tables are rather trivial and insignificant, and don't have corresponding article text discussing their significance. I'd also move the history subsection into the main history section (that would be a start, but a long way to go, for improving that section). A 'media' section is completely absent from the article, and should be added (news media: newspapers, radio, television).

I'm not seeing the significance of the table of exam scores in the education section (it seems like it's going a bit too far in one direction and is slanting the education section towards minute and rather non-notable details; POV?).

Merge the 'religion' section into 'demographics', as the two are related.

Ditch the table under 'twin towns' and simply go with a simple bulleted list. The table is unnecessary and cluttered.

There's simply too much information missing from the article at this point for the article to meet the comprehensiveness criterion of WP:WIAGA, and therefore I am delisting and referring this back to WP:GAN. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's start addressing these issued. Bear in mind that the structure is still quite experimental since there are few similar articles to this of a recognisably high standard. First of all, the history section: the problem here is perhaps including to much detail we (I) have veered the other way. The problem is how much emphasis should be placed on the history of the area (including the constituent towns) since the borough was only created in 1974; I've tried to provide a brief summary, but more detail shouldn't be hard to add. As such, I've merged the 'history' section from 'governance' into the main 'history' section which adds a bit more balance.Concerning the 'governance' section perhaps it would just be a case of removing subheadings? Maybe the table of wards is unnecessary but I think it does provide relevant information on the size of the wards, I was actually thinking of adding the party of the councillors they elected, would this be worthwhile? The graphic showing the making of the council is certainly easier to digest than a list of figures. I agree that the exam scores may be going into too much detail; I think the way to address this is to move it into the list of schools in Salford article where it seems more appropriate. I'm not adverse to merging the demography and religion sections, however there are many good articles where demography and religion are separate, stand alone section because they have enough material, although I appreciate that they are related. I have to disagree that a table for the twin towns is cluttered, a bulleted list would look far worse, a table imposes some order.
 * The geography section could be bulked up a bit more, although info on the climate could only realistically take up a sentence or two since (from memory) I think the nearest weather station may be at Manchester Airport which is not especially relevant. I'm not entirely clear by what you mean such as information on neighbourhoods however, could you explain please? As for media etc... well I'd completely forgotten about that, I'm not sure how much there'd be, I'd have to look into it. Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How about something about Media City for a start? - see []
 * Media City is mentioned in the economy section due to the amount of jobs it brought to the area and the effect it is predicted to have on the economy. It could be moved into a new section, but what else would go in it? Instances in which Salford features in films etc? I can't think of any media associated exclusively or mainly with Salford, although I don't live in the area. Nev1 (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

GA passed
For an article about the borough, it meets the GA criteria and can be listed. Thanks for clarifying some of these issues. I made a few minor changes fixing the organization. I still think that, moving forward, the 'governance' section needs to be reorganized, de-emphasizing the use of those multiple 2nd and 3rd level headers and adding more prose to make it come together into a discussion of the governance of the borough. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the pass and your comments, that's something to work with. Nev1 (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)