Talk:Eccles, Greater Manchester/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Initial review
Having read the article through twice, I consider that the article is of the necessary standard to attain GA. It is comprehensive, wide ranging, well illustrated and well referenced. However, there are a few (not many) minor errors/inconsistencies that need to be addressed.

I will leave the lead until last.Pyrotec (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Textiles and the Industrial revolution - a very adequate section, seems to cover much of the ground, could be expanded, but that might unbalance the article. So, possibly no change needed at present.


 * Post-industrial history -
 * This is a bit of a 'dog's dinner'. The first sentence is about decline of the textile industry in 20th century. The second sentence is about the Bridgewater foundry ceasing in 1940 and then becoming an ROF; and the ROF closing in the 1980s and the site becoming a business park. Which seems OK, but it's not quite what the reference states. The company lost its locomotive export trade in the inter-war period, reverted back to engineering, and went into liquidation six months after the works had become an ROF! The second para is all about the 2004-16 Unitary development plan.
 * I must admit it has been very difficult finding information to fill this section. I have read unreliable sources that confirm what you write, but couldn't really put that into the article, so I left it a little bit vague.  There aren't many books on the history of Eccles, and trying to find modern history on the place has been very difficult. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would presume to move the last 80 years of the Bridgewater Foundry/ROF Patricroft into an Industrial rather than a post-industrial section, but that makes this section even smaller. There was a Patricroft TMD - steam shed if you prefer - that seems to have gone without appearing.
 * I have no information on this, any books covering this weren't in the local history section when I went to Eccles library. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have Cantrell (2005), so I can do that one; but I have nothing on steam sheds other than I remember seeing adverts for books & dvd's. Is there anything with "search inside" on amazon?.Pyrotec (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Governance - ✅Pyrotec (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ref 31 does not support any of this first paragraph, its a glossary of terms.
 * I could link directly to the correct page but doing so doesn't give the reader any means of navigating back to the main page of the source, so I've changed the title of the reference so the reader knows how to find the information. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ref 32 uses the term Eccles neighbourhood area, whereas the article states Eccles area. It's not clear what the distinction (if any) is between Eccles and Eccles neighbourhood area.
 * The article is about both Eccles, Eccles Parish, and the Eccles area. I think 'neighbourhood area' means pretty much the same thing as 'administrative area' - Barton and Winton were part of the municipal borough of Eccles (which no longer exists) and the Local Board of Health.  I've tried to make mention of the differences where I can (Wards for instance) but I must admit it can be very confusing to keep track of what is where.  I would summarise that 'Eccles area' can be considered to be the total area covered by all three wards. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Geography -
 * is there a colliery at Patricroft, or should it be there was a colliery at Patricroft?
 * Deleted that bit. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not objecting to its presence, merely the "tense" of the grammar. I have an acceptable published ref (with a not very good index) that states that there was a coal pit a Patricroft and we (I) have: the landowner's name, the engineer's name, the initial depth, the coal seam it was intended to work, what else was worked; but not the date of closure (it might have been 1930s, 1950s, or even earlier).Pyrotec (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead is rather "thin". The first and last paragraphs are possibly OK, but have some scope for expansion. About a third of the middle one appears to be "padding" about the Liverpool & Manchester Railway, and possibly may not reflect what the article says. The L&MR, itself only occupies a minor part of the Transport section. There is no mention of the 1974 reorganisation, which is how and when Eccles became part of the City of Salford. Overall, the lead could be improved. Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:lead - ✅.Pyrotec (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have to do this on Sunday, unless someone else does it before me. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice lead.Pyrotec (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Climate
 * Also, some info on climate is needed. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "It always rains in Manchester" - Well spotted, I missed that one.Pyrotec (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Climate data can be found in the 'further information' link under the Geography section. There isn't any unique data for Eccles so I prefer not to include it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but climate data, if only a short paragraph, is standard for city articles. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Eccles is a part of the city of Salford and City of Salford, a Good Article, does not have a climate section/subsection; on the other hand Manchester, a Featured Article, does. I can understand the arguments for not including climate in the article; and if it is not intended to go for WP:FAC its possibly OK at GA level. Just because it is a requirement of cities (and UKgeo) this article can still make GA without climate, even if cities regrade it as a B-class cities article. On the other hand a straight copy and paste from the Manchester or Greater Manchester articles involves a trivial amount of effort. Interestingly the GM data comes from the Met Office at Manchester Airport, which I think is a good 30 miles from Eccles, so it might not be representative of the Salford/Manchester conurbation. As there are still outstanding "deficiencies" above under consideration, this topic is still open for debate.Pyrotec (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a sentence on climate, drawing parrallels with the rest of Greater Manchester, although the nearest weather station is at Manchester Airport (a little over 10 miles away, not 30!). I think that should be enough for Greater Manchester articles, climate shouldn't change too much within the county, however I will point out to JulianColton that there will be places outside the county where climate data is unavailable and a comprimise such as this will probably be difficult to reach. WP:UKCITIES (the guidleine for writing about UK settlements which is more relevant than any UK:CITIES guidelines) says "A note/section on the settlement's climate (where figures are available)". Nev1 (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I should mention that I added climate data having done the same for Worsley before seeing Parrot of Dooms' objections here. I did it because the climate won't change dramatically in the space of 10 miles, however if PoD feels it should not be in the article, I will happily remove the information. Nev1 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey it isn't my article, it belongs to everyone :) Its just my preference really but I certainly won't object if anyone else wants to add anything.  My feelings are that I'd only add such information if it was specific to the area.  Someone somewhere probably collates such data, but I haven't ever looked for it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've signed off Worsley for GA, so Nev1's addition is acceptable to me as the "reviewer"; but I can understand the resons for not including it. I'm not going to fail it a GA for lack of met data, but that might cause difficults for some projects accepting it as GA-class. I've giving it a ✅, with or without the data.Pyrotec (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

main 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:

I'm clearing this article for GA as it meets the necessary requirements.Pyrotec (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)