Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cheadle Hulme/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:48, 27 June 2009.

Cheadle Hulme

 * Nominator(s):  Majorly  talk  02:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it has pretty much been my baby for the past few months. It was made a GA at the beginning of May, and it has had a very detailed peer review. It's about as comprehensive a source as you can get on the town (or village, not sure which it is) anywhere really. As my history teacher used to say, I literally squeezed every source like a lemon to ensure it was as comprehensive as possible. It was even more detailed before, but this has been cut down significantly. Hopefully the prose is up to scratch, as that was the article's weakest point. I'd like to credit people from WP:GM who have been very helpful to me, giving me advice on all sorts of things. They know who they are - you are very much appreciated. Thanks for your comments,  Majorly  talk  02:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from
 * The article looks pretty good, not yet sure if its FA status but with help from Malleus and Nev1...
 * Evidence of Bronze Age, Roman, and Anglo-Saxon activity has been discovered locally. - Like what? Just because you are summarizing doesn't mean you can leave out major details such as this. :)
 * Added examples.  Majorly  talk  14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is possible to get a more recent consensus number? Excuse me if England performs it like the US, every ten years.
 * Sadly not really possible. As in the US, the UK has a census every ten years. I'll be sure to update in 2011 :) PS I think the wikiculture has affected you when you typo census as "consensus" :)  Majorly  talk  14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Valued at £20 - It would be really, really cool if you could use a source to find how much this cost has inflated.
 * Could be difficult.  Majorly  talk  14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Template:Inflation only goes back as far as 1264, and unfortunately I don't know of any reliable estimates for how much this would be today. Nev1 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Danyers was rewarded for his efforts in the crusades through an annual payment from the king of 40 marks, as well as the gift of Lyme Hall. - In the Crusades article, the titular name is capitalized, it should be here, too.
 * Fixed.  Majorly  talk  14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For many years Cheadle Hulme was rural countryside,[49] consisting of woods, open land, and farms. - I think made up of would be a better word choice than consisting, it seems to fit better, IMO.
 * Changed.  Majorly  talk  14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Link corn mill.
 * Done.  Majorly  talk  14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Depending on how fast you complete these, I have a couple more concerns before I support.  ceran  thor 13:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Turns out there weren't any actionable concerns, so I think this is ready.  ceran  thor 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments -
 * Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return (Specifically I noted UKBMD.org.uk and SMBC)
 * Done - I changed UKBMD.org.uk to GENUKI (which is always referred to as such).  Majorly  talk  21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Current ref 31 (Met Office ..) is lacking a last access date.
 * Fixed.  Majorly  talk  21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Decide and stick with one: either Stockport MBC (and explain it), SMBC (and explain it first usage) or Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council...
 * Done, I opted for the last one.  Majorly  talk  21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
 * Done.  Majorly  talk  21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.filmreference.com/film/55/Tim-McInnerny.html
 * I'm not sure what makes it unreliable - however the only other source that wasn't a copy of IMDB or Wikipedia seems to be this, which is published by Newsquest. I don't know if it would be more appropriate.  Majorly  talk  21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find anything on their site about their editorial processes, etc. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Me neither. This source is probably better.  Majorly  talk  22:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely. I'll mark this resolved and you can change out the refs. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * http://shed-insider.net/wiki/index.php?title=WR_Series_1_Press_Pack_Lauren_Drummond_Interview
 * Hmm, I know it's an unofficial website, but I don't know why they'd fake an interview they had with her. Otherwise I can't find any other sources (other than one hosted on freewebs) of this fact.  Majorly  talk  21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. A lot will depend on what's sourced to it (and since this is basically not something that's negative I'm assuming, it probalby is bearable.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've decided to remove it. It is supposed to just be a selection, and not an exhaustive list anyway.  Majorly  talk  17:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.whydelilah.co.uk/
 * It looks like a fan site, and I can't find any other reliable sources for him. I'll remove him from the list.  Majorly  talk  21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 *  Weak Support with comments (none dealbreaking, but "weak" unless/until #3 is resolved)
 * The lead photo (of the road) is a bit "meh". There's nothing particularly distinctive about this road; would it make more sense to have either an "iconic" building, or something typical of the area? (See Altrincham, Sheerness or Westgate-on-Sea for the kind of things I mean.) Remember, most readers will never have heard of CH and their first reaction will be "It's got a road and a tree? So what?". I'd suggest this one of yours from Flickr – I'm sure Durova & co at WP:GL could "blueify" the washed-out sky – or this one looks quite scenic and less it's-grim-up-north.
 * Thanks for the support. I have to agree with you, I really don't like the main picture. However, it really does represent the area quite well. The pic of Bramall Hall is all very well - but Bramall Hall is more connected with Bramhall than Cheadle Hulme. And the viaduct is a little out of the way of the main centre. The fact is, the pic there now represents the "district centre" of Cheadle Hulme. I could go out and take a better pic - in fact I believe I have quite a few pics of the area. But, Station Road is really the main part of Cheadle Hulme. How about I get one of the two railway bridges? They surely define it quite well.  Majorly  talk  18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, the bridges are ugly as sin. The problem here is it's such a large and varied area, there's not one thing that would represent it well. Would a montage be appropriate?  Majorly  talk  18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "typical houses" or "parade of shops", or something like that? Even "ugly tower blocks" can work quite well – or if there's a hill or a tall building nearby, a view of the area can be quite good. Remember, the lead image is explicitly exempt from the MOSIMAGE Police's rulings on forced image widths, as long as you don't go over 300px in width, so you can get away with images that would be unusable at the low thumbnail size. – iride  scent  18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I went for a pic of the railway viaduct in the end, though not the one on flickr.  Majorly  talk  22:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The bit about "The modern-day Cheadle and Marple Sixth Form College" sits a bit oddly in "Early history" – it would probably make more sense in "Education", with at most a footnote in the Early history section.
 * Yes, I agree. I'll get moving it.  Majorly  talk  18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.  Majorly  talk  19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My usual post on urban geography articles; what was the impact on the area of the 19th century transport revolution? You mention urban growth in one section, and the railways in another, but in an urban-industrial area like modern Manchester the two are intimately connected (in the Manchester/Liverpool conurbation this phenomenon is particularly apparent – even now, the built-up areas follow the routes of often long-closed railway lines and canals). Was the rapid growth implied in the Modern history section a result of the 1842 station making CH a commuter town, or that the opening of a station meant that mills opened in CH itself and people moved there to work in them? You briefly touch on this in the "Economy" section, but only briefly – the history of the massive social, geographic and economic change in 19th century Britain is the history of transport (from railway-induced industrialisation, to the steam-powered gunboat, to cheap international bulk-shipping).
 * I'll see to work on this.  Majorly  talk  18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I've expanded this slightly, but there isn't all that much to go off when it comes to sources. The early 20th century population boost was due to people moving from Manchester to live in the area, with the car being more popular it was easier than ever to commute to work that way. It had little to do with the railway as such. The effect from 1845, when the current station opened is, I think, explained in the article sufficiently.  Majorly  talk  19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Anciently" is a bit of an odd word. Would "formerly" or "historically" be usable?
 * Yes, I'll change it to historically.  Majorly  talk  18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed.  Majorly  talk  19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "A corn mill, which collapsed during the First World War" – is this expandable? And was the collapse linked to the war (either direct bombing or lack of maintenance with workers off fighting) – if not, it might be better to just say "in 1915" (or whenever).
 * Hmm, I don't think there was anything else from the source I used. I expect it collapsed from lack of maintenance, but I'm not sure. I'll see if rewording it is better.  Majorly  talk  18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I reworded it slightly.  Majorly  talk  19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The transport section should probably give the travelling time to Manchester and at least a rough train frequency, to give non-Mancs some sense of CH's degree of isolation from the rest of Manchester; "trains run every 20 minutes" would make it clear that it's not an isolated outpost. Since there's no value judgement involved, I'd consider a timetable to be a RS for these purposes.
 * Well, this is given in more detail in the railway station article, but I'll add something.  Majorly  talk  18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.  Majorly  talk  19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "There are restaurants throughout the area that sell food in styles from all over the world, including Indian, Chinese, and Italian" could be describing pretty much any town center in Europe or North America. Anything particularly distinctive or unusual (award winners, first-in-the-northwest, waiters all dress as Elvis and sing while you eat, etc). Not saying this shouldn't be mentioned, but it just seems a bit of a so-what? way to end a section.
 * It is a bit vague, and I don't believe there is anything particularly special (some famous people have eaten in the Chinese restaurants that I know of, but nothing really remarkable).  Majorly  talk  18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Rearranged.  Majorly  talk  19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no idea if it was or not, but if it was bombed in either war or subject to any significant IRA bombings, that probably warrants a mention.
 * I don't think it was, not a single source I have mentions a bombing.  Majorly  talk  18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have to leave this one as "not done", but it's not really actionable.  Majorly  talk  19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The separation of the "Notable residents" section into "Notable talented people" and "Notable people" reads quite oddly. I can kind of see why you've done it this way – to keep the Big Brother contestant separate from the Great Artists – but it's an arbitrary line (that Julian Turner is "talented" but Felicity Peake wasn't is surely debatable).
 * I'll see what I can do with this.  Majorly  talk  18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I merged them. It's more like one long sentence now. I don't know if that's worse or better than before.  Majorly  talk  19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I say, none are dealbreakers worth opposing over, but I think the transport history thing in particular could do with a polishing up. – iride  scent  18:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, I'll get working on them.  Majorly  talk  18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I could probably list a few dozen examples of minor MoS breaches and redundant words, but on the whole I think it's ready. FA by no means equates to perfection. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do list them, or fix them. Better to be better than worse.  Majorly  talk  18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a couple fixes, but everything else seems to have been resolved already.


 * Images look fine as far as I can tell. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Before this FAC I gave the article a run through. The article was (and of course still is) comprehensive and my only concern was some minor copyediting which was addressed very well by a peer review from . I would have supported the article at the start of its FAC and after further tweaks its even easier for me to declare my support. Nev1 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.