Talk:Didsbury/Archive 1

=1st Archive=

West Didsbury/Didsbury West
Is West Didsbury the same as Didsbury West ward? Perhaps somebody would like to clarify in the articles on Didsbury, Didsbury West, and West Didsbury. Pol098 14:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Separate Page
Should we have a separate page for Didsbury Park? dgdfgd

House prices
Is it really appropriate to give average house prices in an article like this? Who's going to check them, or keep them up to date? Too much of this article reads like advertising puff for Didsbury to me. ---- Eric 07:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe this section should be removed. I've just made a minor edit in this section and wondered the same as -- Eric.  The house next to mine has is going for 250,000.  Does this mean it is below average, or prices have fallen?  I've no idea.  Tell you what, I'll remove it now, and then if we have an estate agent / Wikipedia user who wants to regularly update it, I'll not stop them.  If not, then for the reasons -- Eric described, it ought to remain deleted as obselescence would have followed anyway:)

Didsbury West
Didsbury is divided into East Didsbury,where the photograph of the clock is taken, and the less fashionable (compare relevant house prices) West Didsbury which is a mile or so west on the border of Stockport. "Didsbury West" is the same place designated as a ward.

(The preceeding comment was made by Alun009)

Demography
Why are there two tables giving the same information in this section? Shouldn't they either be merged, or the duplicated information in the larger table be removed? The figures don't agree anyway, having different precisions in each table. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb 12:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold
Hi, I've opted to do the GA review for this article.

It looks very promising, and I'll post my detailed comments in a day or two; one thing I want to say straight away though is that with an outstanding Fact tag it will not pass. But I'm optimistic that we can work together to get this article up to a GA standard. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb 16:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here are my thoughts after reviewing this article. It's not at a GA standard as yet; here's what I see as needing attention:


 * I'm concerned at the copyright status of some of the images:
 * The scanned OS map is surely under copyright to the OS. - ✅ Removed
 * I don't think that you can justify fair use for the logos of Barlow High School or Parswood High school. In an article about those schools, perhaps, but not here. There is no fair use rationale provided for either of them in any case. The copyright status of the Parswood logo has also been flagged as under dispute. ✅ Removed


 * The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, a taster for what's to come. I don't think this lead does the job, and is rather short for an article of this length. There should also be nothing stated in the lead that isn't justified elsewhere in the text. In particular the lead says that "Didsbury is an affluent area predominantly populated by young professionals, families and some students and is highly desirable in the residential property market"; apart from sounding like it was taken from an estate agent's brochure, that isn't supported elsewhere in the article, nor even by the reference provided in the lead. I'd have expected to see some corroborating evidence for those claims in the Demographics and Economy sections. On the topic of references in the lead, my preference is that either there should be none – on the basis that everything claimed is substantiated later – or that every claim is referenced. I can't see any logic for picking and choosing what to reference and what not to reference. Hopefully ✅


 * The last paragraph of the lead – "Didsbury can be defined in a number of ways ..." – leaves me wondering just what definition of Didsbury has been used in the compilation of this article. ✅


 * There are too many short sections, which break up the flow of the article unnecessarily, particularly in the History section. Reviewing the structure of the article in accordance with the WP:UKCITIES guidelines might help. Toponymy, for instance, doesn't warrant an entire section to itself; it's better as a part of the History section. ✅


 * The History section seems very lightweight, and I think that more substance is needed to fulfil the "broad coverage" required by a GA. There's no mention of Oliver Cromwell, for instance, and there seem to be big gaps. It's claimed that the ford across the Mersey has "had recorded use since the Roman age." Yet the next topic chronologically is the English Civil War. ✅


 * The article needs more references. The claim about the Romans (above) is unreferenced for instance, and there is an entire paragraph in the Governance section without a single reference. "Didsbury is ... approximately 84 feet (26 m) above sea level." Who says so? ✅


 * So far as the prose is concerned, the article needs a good copyedit. There are many sentences that read strangely: "For Didsbury, which is smaller in comparison, has around 4% of its population ..." "Didsbury boasts the second largest Jewish population in the borough ..." Why is that something to boast about? "It also ranked well in its 2003 inspection of which is was evaluated to be ...." These are just randomly chosen examples. Needs Inspection.


 * The external links section needs to be pruned in accordance with WP:EL. It currently looks like a link farm. ✅


 * The list of primary schools in the Education section should either be moved to the List of schools in the North West of England, with a "further information" tag left in this article, or the list could be converted to a table. Straightforward lists generally aren't encouraged. ✅


 * Units of measurement should be used consistently. Either metric or imperial first, conventionally by a conversion to the other in brackets. The lead says that Didsbury is about six miles south of Manchester city centre, without a conversion to km. In the Geography section it says that "... the village lies 4.7 miles (7.6 km) from Manchester city centre." (Why is there a discrepancy in how far away Didsbury actually is from Manchester city centre?) In the Green Areas section – only the first word of a section name should normally be capitalised – the Fletcher Moss park mis said to be 85,000 square metres, without any imperial conversion. ✅ by reviewer


 * Not quite done; Fletcher Moss is given as "85,000 square metres (914,932 sq ft)", i.e., metric first. I think it's also a little unusual to provide a conversion between square metres and square feet, instead of the more obvious square yards. For medium sized areas like that I'd probably expect the sizes to be given in acres/hectares anyway. But the only thing I'm going to insist on is consistency. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In summary, I think that this article needs a significant amount of work to reach GA status, but not an impossible amount. So I'm placing it on hold for seven days. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Having been directed here from WP:MANC, I absolutely concur with User:Malleus Fatuarum, and couldn't have put it better myself. I've made some of the changes he's suggested (without even looking at them here!), but this article really needs much more work.


 * In addition to the technical suggestions made above, my concern is that this article seems to be a "cut-and-paste" job of some other (admittedly strong) local articles. Though WP:UKCITIES has suggested structure, the content with it can be quite bespoke. Finally, more use of printed material (such as books, journals) would help (This Victoria County History page and this Topographical entry may also help - but be mindful they are historic documents and should be reworded if used), and taking the article to Peer review ususally throws up some great suggestions. Hope that helps, Jza84 23:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Desmond Pastore
The information on Desmond Pastore – the oldest rugby player in the world – needs to be checked. The article suggests that he's still playing at 92, but this BBC report suggests that he played for Sale, not Sale Sharks, and that he played his last game on his 91st birthday, for "Manchester club Egor", not Old Bedians. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find it now, but there was a page on the Old Bedians website, but for some reason it doesnt exist anymore. I didn't use the link originally because it was dated early 2006 and I thought that it would be "struck down" and  would be added. What should I write/do instead?  Onnaghar   talk ! ctrb 15:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've found a page on the Old Bedians web site that I clarifies things. I'll write something and you can change it as you see fit. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

✅ -  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb 17:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Northern Tennis Club logo
The fair use rationale for this image must include a statement of purpose, i.e., what's the justification for using this copyrighted image in the article? Without it, it's likely to be automatically deleted.

Apart from which, it just looks like advertising for the tennis club to me. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Done?  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 4. It does not distract attention away from the article, but adds to the information provided.
 * 5. It does not publicly promote the centre, but shows their logo.


 * In what way does it add to the information provided in the article? What information is the logo adding to this article? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px]] Completed the Fair use rationale -  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb 14:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination
There's been a tremendous amount of good work done in improving this article over the last seven days, but after reviewing it again I've got no option but to fail it as a GA nominee. I've assessed the article against the six good article criteria, and here are my conclusions:

1. Well written?:
 * It isn't required that a good article follow all of the manual of style guidelines, but it should do so for the lead section, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * I have a few issues with some of the prose, most of them minor, and they would not on their own have caused me to fail this article. But there are quite a few sentences that are hard to understand, and some apparent inconsistencies. Here are some examples:
 * The lead says: "The Towers ... designed by the architect John Worthington in the late 1850s ..." but then later claims that "It was originally designed ... in late 1865".
 * "He [Dyddi] was thought to have been on Stenner Brow near Stenner Lane, above the banks of the River Mersey on rich fertile soil." What is that referring to? Dyddi himself or his camp/village/...?
 * The Church of St James is variously referred to as "St James's Church", "St James' Parish Church", "St James' Church" and "St James Parish Church".
 * Invented words: "However, even though Didsbury disparted ..."; "which all trans-literate".
 * There are more minor prose issues like the inconsistent placing of the citation either before or after the punctuation. Whether you agree with the MOS guideline of placing references after the punctuation or not, it's distracting for the reader when it's not done consistently. I'd recommend conforming to the MOS on issues like that, as it gives reviewers less to complain about, but the key thing is consistency.

2. Factually accurate?:
 * There are too many instances where the reference provided doesn't support the claim being made, and questionnable claims are made without any supporting reference. Once again, a few examples:


 * The lead claims that "Didsbury is ... highly desirable in the residential property market", but neither of the references given actually say that, they say desirable.
 * "As a consequence, of the marches and retreats across the river by Prince Rupert and Bonnie Prince Stuart, the hamlet was made a focal point for the journeys from the North of England to London and so became more economically active than before. Some analysts believe this to be the "early signs of industrialistion" in Manchester." That's not what the reference says, and the apparent quote from that reference isn't actually a quote at all.
 * "Didsbury's population is around 4% Irish (with two grandparents that are Irish) according to the 2001 census, however, this rises to 39% for people with at least one Irish grandparent." The reference provided doesn't even mention the subject.
 * "Didsbury is also the headquarters of one of Manchester Evening News' most widely read subsidiaries, the South Manchester Reporter". What's the evidence for "most widely read"? It certainly isn't the reference provided.

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * The scope of the article is reasonable.

4. Neutral point of view?:
 * I have concerns over unsourced statements like:
 * "The pubs and bars ... represent a thriving social scene".
 * "... one of Manchester's foremost racquet clubs"

5. Stability?:
 * No problem with the stability of the article.

6. Images?:
 * I remain unconvinced of the need to include the logo of the the Northern Tennis Club, and by the fair use rationale provided.

I hope that this article will continue to improve in the way that it has over the last week, and that it will soon be ready to be re-nominated as a GA once these issues are addressed. Congratulations on what's been achieved so far.

If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

=2nd Archive=

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: A well-written and imformative article
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Accurate and well-referenced
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Covers the subject very well.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Written in an NPOV and encyclopedic tone
 * 5. Article stability? Earlier rving seems to have stopped.
 * 6. Images?: Good selection of images. The Daniel Adamson image needs author information, but I didn't see this as serious enough to fail the article

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Lurker  (said · done) 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On behalf of me and Malleus, thank you with the sincerest of emotion. This has took two months to complete, and I concur with your findings. Thank you once again. Regards, Rudget Contributions 19:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

WPGM Drive?
Should we try to get Didsbury back up to GA standard soon? The GA review we had last time was accurate and this is why we need to source Didsbury correctly. Thanks.  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb ! er 15:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should. Let's do it! :) --Malleus Fatuarum 15:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, when do we start? :) --Malleus Fatuarum 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. I've got lots of coursework recently. So, I can't work at my full efficiency. + I don't know what to do. :S  Onnaghar   talk ! ctrb ! er 16:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just pulling your leg. The article's starting to look pretty good now I think, miles better than it did before you started taking an interest in it. With a bit more work I'm pretty sure we can it get it up to GA very soon now. The Demographics, Religion, Education, Media and Transport sections/subsections still need some work I think, and perhaps the lead needs some thought ... but it's getting there. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping me so much by the way. I must have forgot to mention that, or did I? :)  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb ! er 18:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What else is there to do? - I want to contribute and be accredited for at least one article! :)  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb ! er 15:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the biggest thing outstanding is to sort out the confusion surrounding Didsbury, East Didsbury and West Didsbury in the lead, but more particularly in relation to the figures given in the Demographics, Religion and Education sections. The first link in the Didsbury compared table [27] doesn't go to where it says it goes, and the second goes to figures for the ward of Didsbury. Yet there is no ward of Didsbury according to the Manchester City Council site; there's Didsbury East and Didsbury West, for which there appear to be no figures in the 2001 census. What's going on there? The figures look a big dubious to me as well, so I think they need to be checked too. Some of the claims being made in those sections don't stack up either, and need to be revisited. For instance, "It [Didsbury] has a larger Christian community than Manchester ..." clearly can't be true. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mills
From reading the two references given concerning Didsbury Mill, it looks to me like there are two mills being discussed, one of which is in Didsbury and the other in Northenden. Is that what it looks like to everyone else? --Malleus Fatuarum 15:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do I count? - If so, then probably.  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb ! er 18:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You opinion is as welcome as anyone else's. But what puts doubt in my mind is this statement in the second reference: "There is reason to suppose that Northenden Mill was itself established by the 13th century at the latest. Documentary evidence for corn mills in north-east Cheshire and south-east Lancashire suggests that their numbers significantly increased during that century, reflecting an increase in the size of the local population. Along the Mersey, Didsbury Mill was existence by the late 13th century." --Malleus Fatuarum 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Population total and density
Is it possible that the population and population density figures could be made clearer as to what definition of "Didsbury" they pertain to. The lead makes it clear that Didsbury can be defined in different ways, so surely the population figures gathered will be from just one of these definitions. - I presume it's the electoral ward of Didsbury, but if so, it needs mentioning either in the lead or the Demography section or both. Jza84 13:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it covers the entire Didsbury area, not just the individual small part on Wilmslow Road. I'lll include it now.  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb ! er 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Geography
"This northern boundary is marked by a boundary stone in the front garden wall of a house on the west side of Wilmslow." Presumably this should say Wilmslow Road, not Wilmslow? Can we find a reference for this? --Malleus Fatuarum 17:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, It must have been removed. I tried to find a ref when the article was on hold, but I couldn't. I'd also like to take this oppurtunity to mention that the majority of the unreferenced content in here was not written by me.  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb ! er 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'm sure nobody's blaming you for any unreferenced content. But there was an awful lot of it, and most of it didn't stand up to very close inspection. Still, that's what things like GA reviews are all about. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * :|  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb ! ed.rev. 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Northern Tennis Club Logo
Should I remove it? - or should I keep it there until a new image can be found?  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb ! ed.rev. 17:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove it. This article is not about the tennis centre, and having the logo there does not "significantly increase readers' understanding" of Didsbury. Not keen on the image of the railway bridge either, as it doesn't tell us much. A picture of East Didsbury station itself would be better. On another topic, the "busiest bus corridor in Europe" lore doesn't really apply to Didsbury as the route splits in two in Withington. Oldelpaso 10:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Cached web page, Spanish & Portuguese Jews
That cached web page from Google won't stand up as a reference, but we can easily replace it with another.

I'm concerned though about that whole section on the Jews, as I don't believe that the influx of Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries came from Spain or Portugal at all. I think the Spanish/Portuguese came earlier, and the Sephardic Jews who came from eastern Europe, and from the Jewish community who moved from north Manchester at that time just adopted the Spanish & Portuguese identity to differentiate themselves from the Ashkenazim Jews.

Discuss :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuarum (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The version where this section was added on this diff and has probably just been forgotten about since then. From the cached ref it seems the European Jews may have adopted Spanish and Portuguese identity but to identify them from the Ashkenazim Jews they would have had to have showed ID papers wouldn't they? And in regard to the Spanish/Portuguese I can't find any ref. So I'm as they say, stuck. Onnaghar talk.review 19:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't clear when I said "adopted the Spanish & Portuguese identity". I didn't mean that they changed nationality or anything like that, but that they adopted the variety of Judaism practicised by the earlier immigrants. I'll see if I can find anything about these earlier Spanish & Portuguese Jews arriving in Manchester. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Onnaghar talk.review 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My family have had connections with places along the no 9 bus route for since the 1890s. So can i offer a few observations. The influx of Jewish immigrants led to Didsbury being nicknamed "Yidsbury" and Palatine Road, a main road through West Didsbury, "Palestine Road".[10] seems to be late 20th Century American Student humour rather than a reflection of reality. The concept of Yiddishness hadn't emerged when I left Manchester in 1982- and was never discussed by great uncles who worked in the City Centre. I had heard of Rusholme being refered to as the 'Kyber Pass' but I believe that was only colleagues repeating a joke they had heard from a pub comedian. This seems to be derivative of that joke. It leads me to question the reliabilty of source 10. The large Jewish population - and thus German- population did lead Manchester to have the only Goethe institut outside London. Cheetham Hill was the area that Manucunians in the 1960 associated with the great Jewish families.

No 9 was run by Stockport CT- from Reddish to the Old Cock, Didsbury. Renamed the 309 under SELNEC. This transport corridor should be mentioned.

Notable people. This does need to be researched. 1960 anecdotes suggested that Manchester was centre of science, radicalism etc and the principal players all worked in the city and had nice houses in Didsbury!

Try Googling 'biography didsbury'. I found for instance Ven. Edward Ambrose Barlow Ewen.JOHN CARR (1892-1951), farmer, soldier and businessman, was born on 25 October 1892

Didsbury College of Education needs a mention with graduates like Tony Cunningham MP for Workington. ROBERTS, OWEN MADOC (1867-1948), minister (Meth.);  b. in 1867

ClemRutter 10:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some good points there, thanks. I think that reference 10 (Yidsbury/Didsbury) is to a sufficiently academic work not to be American student humour. Tom Rosenthal, himself brought up in Didsbury, also mentioned Yidsbury in a Daily Mail article of March this year here and in an Independent article written in July last year, here, so I think there's good reason to believe. --Malleus Fatuarum 12:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting articles- but I stand by my point. I think that the article was written in 2006 would explain the non 1950's language- a sort of 'journalistic recovered memory syndrome'. The Daily Mail article on Harry Bernstein rather proves my point I quote When Harry's sister Lily gets the town's top scholarship to Stockport Grammar School and is about to go for the final, formal interview, he seizes her by the hair and drags her off to work with him in his sweatshop, destroying her chance of a full education and a good job as a teacher, or better. This was an impossibility. Stockport Grammar School was an all boys school at least until 1979-80 when the Convent School was purchased..
 * Tom himself says he is from Withington- and in Manchester (as here in North Kent) one side of the street can be a no go area to folks from the other. I think it is wrong to infer from personal experience in one suburb, the culture of another. Too much wikipedia editing has now got me to state where I want to put a --citation needed-- tag onto radio programmes, the Guardian and most of the books on my bookshelf. I think we must treat Tom's quote as a big --citation needed-- or personal research and his reviews as secondary sources.ClemRutter 22:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but I was just referring to Tom Rosenthal's articles as a counterweight to your own assertion that you, living around Didsbury yourself, had never heard the terms. He says he did, you say you didn't, seems to be a tie. But there was already a reference given to an academic source for Yidsbury, which does not depend on Rosenthal's 2006 articles. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Population
The new population (29,000) is according to MCC projections for East Didsbury and West Didsbury 2007 here and on the main page here. And seen as the article mentions both I thought it was best to add them. Any questions? If so, you know where to go. Onnaghar talk.review 18:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No questions, just a statement; you really need to explain in the article why the infobox gives a population of 14,292, but the lead right next door says 29,000. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The infobox states the official 2001 UK census figures, but the text contains only a projection. Would I have to change it, even though of what it is? Onnaghar talk.review 18:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just not credible that the population has doubled in the last six years, so I think you should take it out. There's more than just Didsbury in the wards of Didsbury East and Didsbury West. They're not the same as what you might consider to be the areas called East Didsbury and West Didsbury. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. I've seen some figures on the Manchester Council web site with an updated population, but adjusted for the pre-2004 boundaries. If you want to give an updated estimate of the current population that would at least be comparing apples with pears. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link? I can't seem to find it. Onnaghar talk.review 18:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this link? - Onnaghar talk.review 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what I was thinking of this, but it still gives the population figure as 14,292. As a general point, I think it would be worthwhile trying to sort out this confusion between the wards of Didsbury East and West, and East and West Didsbury. Can we define the area called Didsbury a little more clearly? --Malleus Fatuarum 19:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's a fair suggestion and I'd have to agree. Although a little tedious, I think the definitions and their respective populations should be more tightly and clearly defined to avoid any confusion. It was this that I tried to raise eariler on, under "Population total and density".


 * Breifly on another note, I'm not entirely sure of the current opening sentence too, and thought the previous one was a stronger option. Jza84 00:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that change. I agree, I'm going to revert it. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review?
Would it be possible to post a GA review request? Onnaghar Editor Review 21:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article is quite there yet. Nearly, but not quite. For instance, the pie chart graphic for industry of employment doesn't match the revised figures. And there is still the issue of Didsbury East/West vs West/East Didsbury to be sorted out. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay! :) Onnaghar Editor Review 21:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have Excel? Could your re-do the pie chart with the corrected figures? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I do. Could you provide a link to the referred figures? Onnaghar Editor Review 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The figures are in the Economy section:
 * "In 2001, the main industries of employment in Didsbury were 20% property and business services, 15% education, 15% health and social work, 10% retail and wholesale, 9% manufacturing, 6% transport and communications, 5% financial services, 4% hotels and restaurants, 4% construction, 4% public administration and defence, and 8% other." --Malleus Fatuarum 21:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did the Pie Chart in school, and since its the weekend I'll have to wait 'til Monday or Wednesday. Regards, Rudget Editor Review 15:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks for offering to take care of that. --Malleus Fatuarum 15:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You may have noticed I've had a name change by the way. :), So Onnaghar is Rudget if anyone wants to know. Rudget Editor Review 16:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What's left to be done before the next GA nomination?
This is what I see as still needing to be done before this article should be re-nominated as a Good Article Candidate:
 * The industries of employment pie chart graphic needs to be either updated or removed. ✅ - Sorry about the presentation. Rudget Contributions 15:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to point out that the axis is wrongly labelled as "thousands"; so the graphic is claiming that 1.4 million people in Didsbury are employed in the Property & Business sector. Which seems unlikely on the face of it. I think you said you didn't have Excel on your PC at home, so I'll knock up a quick chart later. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we just remove it like you suggested? Rudget Contributions 17:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuarum 23:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The religion section needs to be expanded.
 * The lead needs to better summarise the article.


 * Note: The line saying "the mosque was previously a church" in the religion section is known well locally, but the only online source I can find is this. Would it be possible for someone to find a literary source? Rudget Contributions 16:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done for fleshing out the Religion section. I'll see what I can find for a reference. When we've sorted that (and the graphic) out I think we'll be just about ready for the next GA nomination. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And check the pronunciation. I've done my best to decipher it, but what was there wasn't even close to being English. kwami 08:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's go for it!
I think that the article's in pretty good shape now, and well worth putting forward as a GA nomination again. So, I suggest that you nominate it whenever you're ready. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Woop! Woop! - Now nominated. Rudget Contributions 16:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)