Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester


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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009.

Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester
The above list is a complete collection of the Scheduled Monuments (SM) in Greater Manchester, England. The subject is an important one, and SMs are sites of historic importance that are protected from change by legislation. The list features a developed lead and descriptions of each monument in tables. I believe the article fulfils the FL criteria. Cheers, Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll return for a full review later, but for now, my only comment is that there is a dead link and the disambiguation links need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The links were easy enough to fix, the reference was used as a back up and wasn't necessary so has been got rid of. Nev1 (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Some comments - mostly look and feel.
 * When first looking at the page I was slightly surprised to see the set of images 'start' above the first table. On checking the source I saw that all tables and the image column are part of an outer table - something I hadn't seen done before. I would suggest that you get rid of this outer table and put the images separately in each section (before each individual table). One advantage of this is that you can have images directly next to the table of the district that the depicted monument is in (and thus you don't 'run out' of images half-way down the page).
 * Will address this next. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC) The problem is there aren't enough images, some sections would be without them (not so bad for Trafford which on has one SM, but Bolton has three and no images) which leads to the tables being different sizes. Also, some sections have too many images, which means they follow on to the next section, looking messy and causing link bunching; this would mean some have to be left out, in an article with not that many images to begin with. Take a look here to see the problems. While it would be desirable to have the images nearer to the appropriate entry, the current ribbon of images is a neat solution to the problems mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I made my original suggestion because there is now a large right margin of white space for nearly half the page. However, if there aren't enough images available there is not a lot you can do about it (except a field trip perhaps). Boissière (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A few of the image captions don't have wikilinks to the depicted monument.
 * Links added for consistency. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that you need to review the sortability of the columns. In my mind you don't need to sort the description column and if the date and location column are to be sortable then the sort order when you click on them needs to make some sort of sense. Currently both are just doing the default sort on the text of the cell.
 * Agreed, the description column does not need to be sortable, the date column is the only one that concerns me, as Bronze Age doesn't sort nicely with dates like 1677. I'm not sure how to fix that, I'll have a look round, there's probably some template or something, like "sortname". Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The sorting now works, I cheated by adding " 01 " where necessary and forcing it to sort chronologically. Nev1 (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's much better. There is one error though, in Wigan the Moat of Moat House is in the wrong place in the date order. Boissière (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After a couple of attempts, Wigan now sorts properly. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As all the tables contain the same columns then you need to ensure that the columns line up from table to table.
 * The columns are already fixed to a set width, this is pretty much as good as it gets. If the columns don't quite line up, it's because the text inside the columns is too long. For example, for the Bury section, 200 BC–250 AD won't break down into anything smaller because the manual of style requires non-breaking spaces between the numbers and BC/AD. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (Not look and feel) I am almost certain the the Hanging Bridge is entirely within the city of Manchester and that no part of it is inside Salford. The city boundary in this area is the River Irwell and for the bridge to be in both cities it would have to span this river which it does not do. The cited reference (the Salford city council website) does not explicitly claim that the bridge is in Salford.
 * I think you're right, the confusion arose because it's part of the Cathedral conservation area that covers part of the City of Salford. Fixed. Nev1 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Boissière (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - FLC criteria are met. It's just a pity that the images do not link up better with their descriptions, but I understand the reason for that. This will be improved as more images become available. In the meantime it may be better to place them in the order in which they appear in the list. For example Radcliffe Tower should be lower down, and Mamucium and Hanging Bridge should be swtiched. Otherwise an excellent list with good, short but adequate, descriptions (the editors are fortunate that that there are "only" 38 SMs in the county). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.