Talk:Kersal Moor/GA1

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


 * Reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments
This appears to be about GA-level, so I'll review it in some detail going through it section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the lead needs to summarise the article, so the stuff about the management needs moving into a separate section and the rest of the lead needs expanding. Richerman (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * History -
 * I'm not sure that I'm prepared to regard ref 10, a community newletter, as a reliable source (WP:RS). There is an advertisement in it for a book: the first PLACE A History of Kersal - perhaps the quote is lifted from that book, but if so it's not attributed. I suggest that you consider using Glynis Cooper (2005) Salford: A Illustrated History or another reliable source.

It is taken from The first place book but I didn't have access to a copy when I wrote that. I'll get hold of the book and sort that one out Richerman (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

✅ replaced with reference to book Richerman (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no reference for the claim that "Manchester was Mamucium, as it was called by the Romans". Ref 12 does verify that statement, but as it preceeds the claim its not being used as verification.

✅ I've used another reference Richerman (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sport on the moor -
 * This sentence is almost entirely devoid of dates, unless you care to do the mental arithmatic (or morelikely use a pocket calculator): "John Byrom, the owner of Kersal Cell, was greatly opposed to the racing and wrote a pamphlet against it, but the racing continued for fifteen years when, probably through Dr Byrom's influence, they were stopped in the year of the Jacobite rising. The races recommenced after another fifteen years, and were then held every year until 1846, when they were transferred to the New Barns racecourse". I suggest that you use ref 13, ref 15 which quotes the Victoria County History Vol 4, or Glynis Cooper (2005) to remedy this.

✅ Richerman (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Manchester Old Golf club -
 * It is a verifiable fact that "Manchester Golf club was built on the moor", however this article suggests that the moor extended as far south as Vine Street. The problem is that the 1950 edition of the 2 1/2 inch OS sheet SD 80 Middleton (Lancs.) shows the club house as immediately adjacent to but south of Vine Street and the course south of that, possibly south of the footpath. This is also confirmed by the map, Figure 11, on page 11 of Ref 5, which puts it south of the footpath, south of Vine Street.

I've changed it to "extending as far as the River Irwell" On reflection, it would seem more logical as there is no reason to think the area outside the circle of the racecourse was not part of the moor and, as you say, the golf course was definitely on the moor. Alice Searle's book describes it as a much bigger area than the present moorland, so I'll see if there's anything in there to back up the statement. The problem is that it's obvious from all the evidence I've mentioned that it did extend down to the river, but putting it all together only gets us into the area of synthesis. Richerman (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I got delayed with other things. Pyrotec (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Public gatherings and military use -
 * I've no idea whether ref 24, "Cotton times" is a WP:RS, the web does not appear to list any sources for what it claims, but it does have a bibliography page (here: ). I've checked Mathias and Luddies are mentioned but Kersal Moor does not appear in the index; so it may not have come from this one.

✅ I've added another reference to back this up


 * Being pedantic, I don't regard these wikilinks as precise: In June 1812, 30,000 troops from the Wiltshire, Buckinghamshire, Louth and Stirling regiments were camped on Kersal Moor ready for action to suppress the Luddites. Wiltshire is Wiltshire Regiment, the rest should be in Category:Infantry regiments of the British Army.

✅
 * Other pursuits -
 * A trival point: ref 30 & 31 are the same, but they are differently named.

✅ Richerman (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:Lead -
 * At two paragraphs long, its quite a good Intoduction to the article; however it should also summarise the main points. To me these are "history", racing, golf, military, butterflies - these are not "fixed views", to some extent you can add your own favourities, but the lead as it currently stands lacks "Summary". Pyrotec (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

✅


 * A Nice lead. Pyrotec (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary
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:

The article has been much improved during the course of this review. I'm awarding GA-status. Congratulations on the quality of the article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)