Talk:Murrays' Mills/GA1

GA review: On hold
Generally very good, and worthy of GA. However, there are some things which need to be done first, and other areas could be improved or worked on. GA is not dependent on all these being met, but you might like to consider them.
 * General GA Criteria:


 * It is well written
 * readable prose, no major spelling and grammar concerns, generally complies with WP:MOS, but a few minor concerns:
 * Lead: is quite short for article of this size, and does not "summarise the most important points covered in [the] article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." See WP:LEAD.
 * Lead: We don't need the co-ordinates here; distracting and repetitive: they're already in infobox and on page header. Consider moving the grid ref to the infobox also.
 * Lead: "credited as being" a little weaselly. Is it or not? Who credits it? Which other building might be?
 * Foundation: not chronological; it would be helpful to know the Murray brothers' background first, and the general market context before we see them build it.
 * "poses interesting question": 2 problems: "interesting" is commentary; clumsy suspense,or description of research process. Just baldly state issue and possibility.  "The 90° turn posed problems for canal boats...which may have been overcome..."
 * Expansion: "doubling" is a red link, and I don't know what this is. Can this be explained briefly?
 * "As the name suggests" is a bit redundant. Look out for this kind of redundancy throughout. User:Tony1 has a good how-to guide for this.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * Inline citations present, good range of reliable sources used; just a few minor citation and bibliographic issues:
 * Place of publication for the bibliography books?
 * You have cited a few facts in the lead (such as owners) but not the more controversial claims, such as "largest in the world", "oldest surviving". If the lead maintains a general style citations are not always required for those facts cited later (such as the owners?), but these claims might be challenged; see: WP:LEAD.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * appears comprehensive, covering major points of interest related to mill, maintains summary style. but:
 * Decline section rather brief. We see a new mill building built, then see them being leased out. Was the machinery sold off?  What kind of cotton production?  Who owned the mill during this time?
 * Might be helpful to have a quick overview or explanation of cotton trade: a bit of context for all the terms. I still don't really know what this complex did. Also, what was it like to work in?  What kind of provisions were there for workers? (Not essential for GA, but worth considering if you want to take it up the  quality scale)


 * It is neutral;
 * ✅ Neutral tone maintained throughout


 * It is '''stable
 * ✅ No edit warring, or content dispute; no major rewriting of content


 * It is illustrated, where possible, by images'''
 * Tags all checked: all but one from Commons. However:
 * The plan is non-free and tagged "fair-use", but I am not sure it qualifies under fair use policy 1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created". Plans can probably be recreated; there may even be some available.  I would hesitate to pass this article with such an image in place, without assurance it meets WP's guidelines.  It might be worth asking at Media Copyright Questions.
 * A bit of image stacking is taking place with them all marching down the right side. Consider the advice at MOS: Images.
 * It would also be good to see more relationship between the images and text: the canal shot would seem more relevant and less decorative if it illustrated the discussion about the canal access

other issues:
 * I can see why the plan image is important: it's quite hard to follow the layout and where all things fit in. At some stage in this article's progress, you might want to consider adding in a description section at the beginning, describing the current layout of the complex.  "Square section..bordered by such-and such streets, brick-built buildings on X sides... basin was once in centre..." and so forth.

I hope you don't think I'm too harsh; as I said above, not all these points are essential for GA, merely desirable! I think the priorities are to get the lead sorted, the foundation section organised chronologically, the fair use image discussed, and the general image layout improved. Do feel free to discuss any of these with me. And well done on producing such a comprehensive article; I've enjoyed going through it. Gwinva (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think the major issues raised are nearly sorted.


 * The first section has been reordered chronologically.
 * The lead has been greatly expanded which made it easier to rearrange the images in the article and put them closer to the appropriate text. I think it works.
 * The only major thing outstanding is the fair use image. Ok, I think a much simplified and free version can be drawn up, derived from the current plan. If no one else does before me, I'll sort it out in the next couple of days.
 * With regards to working conditions and background etc that's something to work on in the future certainly, but at the moment I don't have access to the source I was using. Nev1 (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. I'll have a closer look at it later, but things look good.  Gwinva (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been though for another read and copyedit: it's great to have a working conditions section. Seems we're just waiting on that fair use image.  I'll keep watching this page.  Gwinva (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Steps are being taken to aquire a new graphic, in the mean time, while I agree a plan is important, perhaps the current one should be provisionally removed from the article to allow it to make the step up to GA? Nev1 (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

GA pass
I've removed the fair use image, and passed this as GA. Well done. Gwinva (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)