User talk:ClemRutter/Archives/2011/July

Assessment of mill articles
Hi, you mentioned the lack of assessment of mill articles on the Manchester talk page. I am not part of the Manchester project, but have had a look at Arkwright Mill, Rochdale. I think I would rate it Start at the moment. There are several suggestions to get it to C. As someone with little knowlege of spinning, I think it relies a little too heavily on wikilinks. Thus The Rochdale Limiteds were some of the first to adopt ring spinning. A sentence outlining ring spinning would really help. Similarly, and used both ring frames and spinning mules would benefit from some indication of what a spinning mule is, in addition to the link. For there were 49,000 mule spindles and 26,000 ring spindles, spinning 16's, clicking on the 16's wikilink doesn't really help me, since I cannot easily identify 16's in the info presented there. Again, an explanation as part of the article would help.

There are other areas where a little more explanation is needed. Thus Its ownership model was slightly different from that of Oldham, and more shares remained in the hands of the operatives. Some explanation of how the ownership was different would help, unless the and should be as, and the shares were the only real difference. Then, They had 300/408 mule twist, 208/368 ring twist, 228/428 weft is pretty unintelligible to someone with no knowlege of the industry. A simple explanation of what the numbers mean would be great.

I think the panels in the See Also section ought to be at the bottom of the article, as they are for most other articles, and I would remove the empty Notes section.

To get it up to a B, I think you need some more information on the mill itself, since much of the content is background. I have no idea whether this is readily available, but for what it's worth, something on the overall size, construction of the building, size of the workforce, economic impacts on Rochdale, product range, power sources (steam / water, then electric?) with dates, etc would be needed. Also, are they really still using the 1885 equipment?

As for importance, my guess is that it depends on factors like economic impact on Rochdale. If it is a major employer, it might be Mid, otherwise I suspect it is Low. Again, there are suggestions as to how these are fixed on WikiProject_Greater_Manchester/Assessment.

I hope that helps. If I had any sources on the subject, I'd offer to help, as it seems like it might be quite an interesting subject area. Feel free to challenge any or all of this. Keep up the good work! Bob1960evens (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback- I will read it in detail tonight and comment further then. Really grateful.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think all the ones I looked I assessed as start class. So far as the importance is concerned I think in pretty much every case it'll depend on whether or not the building is listed, and at what grade: Grade 1 high importance, Grade II* mid, and Grade II/no listing low. Malleus Fatuorum 16:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As for importance assessments, most individual mills will be mid importance for WP:MILLS, with a few at high importance. Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see the logic of that, unless all mills are of mid-importance to the Mills Project? Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Having read through and assessed quite a few of these articles now for the GM project a couple of things stand out for me:
 * First of all a small thing. In almost all I've come across so far "great war" isn't capitalised "Great War", as it should be.
 * Much more importantly, the amount of repetition between articles is quite extraordinary, and a result there's often very little information specific to the mill that the article's nominally about. As example take Textile Mill, Chadderton, which I've assessed as a stub despite its apparent length because only about 10% of the article (if that) is actually specifically about the mill. The rest is about the textile industry in Oldham generally, which is a good pointer as to how this series of articles ought to be developed I think. First of all, a general article about the textile industry in each area (Oldham, Rochdale, Bury and so on), and then each mill article can link to that main article with a potted history of the industry in that area tailored to the specific mill being written about replacing the present History sections. Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's useful. In a couple of years when a certain mass has been achieved it will be a way forward- but the fear is that clusters of mills within say Oldham develop a 'vicus' around them which gain independent life from the town and as each article develops- the history will diverge. It also suggests that I could boiler plate some text, that expand on common terms, which can be introduced and later replaced when the facts diverge from the norm. Anyway, I can now self assess new mill article I produce- there are plenty in the incubators:- List of mills in Oldham and his mates. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Medway Veterans council (removed link)
cant help but find myself disgusted by your comment about being a link farm, we give a vital service to people in medway (around 60 per week) and you dont think it should displayed, i am utterly shocked you can make a decision like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medwayvets (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)