Talk:Tyldesley/GA1

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


 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments
After a quick-read-through, this looks quite a reasonable article. However, refs 38, 39 and 40 seem a bit strange: they have the appearance of being web sites, but without the "www." prefix (well "http://www." prefix to split hairs). As this will not be quick-failed, I will now carry out a detailed review section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've fixed the refs now.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll get to those later - they stuck out" whilst I was quickly reading the article. Pyrotec (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * History -
 * Toponymy -
 * This part <*>Tyldesley means "Tilwald's clearing", and is derived from the Old English (OE) personal name Tilwald (or Tīlwald) and leăh meaning "wood, clearing"<*>, does not appear to be covered by ref 5, (however, I could have missed it) but it is in Mills (1998), on page 355. Interestingly, the same paragraph later invokes Mills, pages 404 and 405 - "hyrst" is on page 404 so pressumable page 405 is for "leăh"?


 * I have rearranged the refs, I hope it's better --J3Mrs (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Much improved. Thanks ✅. Pyrotec (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Earliest history -
 * This claim is unreferenced, so could (possibly) be WP:OR: "After the Roman departure from Britain, and into the history of Anglo-Saxon England, nothing was written about Tyldesley. Evidence for the presence of Saxons in what became a sparsely populated and isolated part of the country is provided by local place names that incorporate the Old English suffix of leah, such as Tyldesley, Shakerley, and Astley".". However, Tyldesley and Astley are mentioned by name in Mills (1998), so that could be used as a citation.


 * Used Mills as suggested --J3Mrs (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Manor houses -
 * This appears to be compliant.

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Banks Estate -
 * The second paragraph, which is a direct quote from John Aikin needs a citation.


 * added citation--J3Mrs (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also going to ask for one for "The last quarter of the 18th century marked the beginning of a building boom in Tyldesley. The grid pattern of the present town is from this date.", in the 1st para.


 * added citation--J3Mrs (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Industrial Revolution -
 * Just a comment, no action is needed. This is covered, in part or whole, in: Hayes, Geoffrey. Collieries in the Manchester Coalfields, Eindhoven: De Archaeologische Press. Not dated, but I bought my copy from the publisher in March 1987.


 * Governance and Geography -
 * These appear to be compliant.

Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Geography, Demograaphy and Ecomony-
 * These appear to be compliant.


 * Landmarks -
 * I'm not sure whether "The Parish Church is one of the few stone structures in a town built largely of brick." is an opinion or a fact: a fact aught to have a citation. It is vague as well: looking at the pictures, Old St George's School also appears to be stone. You could say (if its correct, I don't know), e.g. "The Parish Church, together with Old St George's School, are some of the few stone structures in a town built largely of brick." (but I'm not all that happy with the grammar of this revised example).
 * I found a ref and added it, Tyldesley is largely brick, hope the ref is satisfactory--J3Mrs (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've rejigged this section. The final sentence now says "Tyldesley's built environment is almost uniformly constructed of brick", which is what I think J3Mrs is trying to get across. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for improving the grammar. However, just a small point, "uniformly constructed of brick" could be interpreted differently to "built largely (or other synonyms such as mostly, mainly, predominantly) in/of brick. But, realistically, I'm not going to undertake an arguement with you on grammar during this review - I'm going to pass the article anyway: PR and FAC next? Pyrotec (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Transport and Education-
 * These appear to be compliant.


 * Religion -
 * The middle para could do with a citation for the 1847 division of the diocese.
 * Ditto the final sentence in the last para.


 * added ref for last sentence, 1847 ref to follow--J3Mrs (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * added 1847 ref--J3Mrs (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sport and Culture -
 * These appear to be compliant.

Reasonably acceptable.
 * WP:Lead -

Pyrotec (talk) 10:05, 9 October 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:


 * Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA-status; and (apparently) congratulations on acheiving your first GA. Pyrotec (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Pyrotech, yes the very first article I ever edited, I came looking for information and ended up writing some of it.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)