Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Radcliffe, Greater Manchester/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Radcliffe, Greater Manchester
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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 05:17, 29 December 2008 [1].

Radcliffe, Greater Manchester

edit
Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it offers the reader a comprehensive guide to the history and current status of an important mill town in the North West of England. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Take a good look at your references. I have found several unsourced facts.

:#"The mill burned down in 1851." - Source needed.

I have removed this line. I cannot remember where I read it, but I believe that the land the mill stood on was re-used as another mill. When I find that information I will add it back in. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:#"There were many smaller textile concerns in the parish. Thomas Howarth owned a cottage in Stand Lane, from where he sent yarn to be dyed and sized, made his own warps, had them weaved locally, and took to Preston and Kendal for sale to drapers. His nephews founded A. & J. Hoyle's mill in Irwell Street, which employed power weaving to produce their specialities in Ginghams and Shirting. The mill closed in 1968.[28] Powered looms and spinning were introduced to the town around 1844, by Messrs Stott & Pickstone's Top Shop on Stand Lane, who employed many people who later left to start their own businesses, such as Spider Mill, built by Robert and William Fletcher, and John Pickstone. This mill closed around 1930." - Source at the end of the paragraph, at least.

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:#"It has since been demolished, along with the East Lancashire mill." - Same here as the first.

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:#"From the 11th century, Radcliffe was a parish and township in the hundred of Salford, and county of Lancashire." - This too.

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:#"Several weirs and Goits were built along the course of the river as it passes through the town. Flowing from east to west the river divides the town on the north and south sides of the valley respectively. The town centre sits on the north side of the valley. Two road bridges cross the river; the 1905 structure in the former hamlet of Radcliffe Bridge, and the newer bridge built as part of the A665 Pilkington Bypass. Various smaller pedestrian footbridges exist, and two railway viaducts (one disused) also cross the river. To the east of the town the River Roch, flowing from the east, joins the Irwell close to another bridging point, Blackford bridge." - No reference at all for that one. Please add one.

I'm unsure how to do this. It's all perfectly visible from Google Earth. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:#"...with Manchester City Centre itself 6.5 miles (10.5 km) south-southeast of Radcliffe." - Here too.

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:#"...reflecting the number of mines in and around Radcliffe that had by that time been completely worked out." - And again.

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The town's central shopping precinct retains a Boots, an Ethel Austin outlet, and several other shops. A Dunelm Mill store occupies the former site of the town's Asda supermarket." - Needs it.
I'll can probably find references in the form of 'store location' pages for each of those shops. I don't know if I'll be able to find a reference for the Dunelm store replacing the Asda, unless I can find some archived addresses that prove this. Perhaps its better just to make the line more generic - ie "the town has a shopping precinct..." Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The fountain no longer exists at this location." - Here too.
Uncertain how to do this, other than to take a photograph or to look on Google Earth. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Radcliffe's closest railway connection therefore was at Stoneclough, several miles distant." - Here again.
Its difficult to find a reference for something which didn't exist. Nearby Bury (the larger town) didn't get a railway until the line through Radcliffe was built. The nearest railway at that time was the Manchester and Bolton Railway, and the closest station on that line was at Stoneclough (now Kearsley railway station). If the present line that serves Radcliffe were removed, the closest station would still be at Stoneclough. Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "brought the town a direct connection to Manchester and Bury. Two stations served the town, Radcliffe Bridge, and Withins Lane station (although this closed in 1851 after only a few years of operation). Ringley Road station was located to the south of the town, close to the civil parish of Pilkington. The line crossed the Irwell over Outwood Viaduct, an impressive structure which remains to this day." - Add one, or move Ref 86 to end of 'graph.
Done - new reference Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "with a link northwest to the L&BR line at Bradley Fold (near the present day Chatsworth Road) from the new station, and a new station along Ainsworth Road, Ainsworth Road Halt. The new L&YR route joined the existing ELR route near Withins Lane (North Junction), whereon they shared the connection to Bury. The L&YR gained another act in 1877 to construct a link between North Junction and Coney Green farm (West Junction). The LY&R line was electrified in 1916 for which a substation was constructed between the canal and the West Fork." - Here too.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Today the building is used as council offices." - Source?
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The station was closed in 1959." - More Source?
The line was from the station's own article, to which I have inserted a citation request. Until fulfilled I have removed this line. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "and the late snooker player, John Spencer." - Source? from another angle.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "A museum was located in the upper rooms of Close House." - This needs one.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The town is also along the route of the Irwell Sculpture Trail." - source?
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "although a rebuilt bridge along Water Street presents a barrier to its full restoration." - Last one.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also other things:
  1. What is with the mass linking in the citations. Things like "Hudson 2001" don't need to be referenced constantly with wiki-links.
I'm not sure what your objection is here. The Harvnb template automatically creates links? Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Future developments" is POVish, rename to "Future".
Changed to 'Future Plans' as per WP:UKCITIES Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Deblold Radcliffe in the chart in Education.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Convert the chart in Population to 3 rows, to prevent the gap.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Blackford bridge." - Capitalize Bridge
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Notable people" should also be renamed. Maybe "People from Radcliffe" - you decide.
Naming of this section follows the guidelines at WP:UKCITIES Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is "Toponymy" expandable?
Possibly, but likely the best chance would be for me to get access to the Domesday Book - that costs money online, and I've already spent a fair bit travelling for this article. If someone has a subscription... Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be able to check in a paper copy on Saturday. Nev1 (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know though, it's unlikely the Domesday book will help; it detailed who owned what land and the mills etc on the land, there was no analysis of names. IMO the section doesn't need expanding and addresses the main points of the name (there may be other theories for the name, but if one has academic consensus it seems irrelevant to mention others. If the objection is that the section is only two lines long, it should be merged with early history. Nev1 (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to help with topynomy in Domesday Book, but it does show that Radcliffe was a royal manor. Here's the entry:"King Edward held Radeclive [Radcliffe] as a manor. There is 1 hide and another hide belonging to Salford"[1] from Williams, Ann (ed.) (2003). Domesday Book: A Complete Translation. Penguin Classics. ISBN 0-141-43994-7. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help).


  1. "Bury to Manchester turnpike." - Bury to Manchester Turnpike.
All instances of turnpike have now been capitalised. Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't turnpike only be capitalised where it's part of the full name? Nev1 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you find these comments useful. Good luck!Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 01:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Its late, so give me until tomorrow to start on the majority of this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: File:Cotton mill.jpg is probably public domain, but since it was published in the UK, it should have an applicable template tag for public domain in the UK: {{PD-UK}}. It has a public domain in the US tag now. As well, can you complete the image summary?

Changed the licence as requested. It is a generic mill image I found in this article so I cannot offer any more information. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are all from the booklets in the source field. I took the pictures on my mobile phone in the library. Generally, no author information is given. The council offices image which was 'kindly lent by R Muschamp' - I have just looked around for an R Muschamp and have come across a Robert Muschamp who has authored some material from around the area. One of those publications is 1937, so I'm guessing now that this image cannot be used, and should be deleted. I've updated the author info on the image, please advise and I will remove it immediately. I have the original photographs which I can upload and link (for confirmation of their status) if required. The 'radcliffe from the air' image is by an N.S.Roberts of Royton, and this image also may well not be useable. I am by no means an expert on copyright status, its very confusing so would appreciate any help. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed 2 images with author information and likely unexpired copyright. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your source for File:Tram in Radcliffe 1905 Greater Manchester.jpg is a geocities site. I admit I am unsure if this qualifies as a reliable source. Certainly I would be very skeptical if information in the article came from geocities. I recommend finding a more reliable source (your local public library, perhaps?) or switching the image for a similar theme with a better RS.
I can get other Tram images if you prefer. I'm quite certain this one is genuine as I have seen others in the library, taken from the same vantage point, with the same technical limitations of the film used on the day. Nothing in the article whatsoever comes from the geocities website - the image has been used to illustrate, nothing more. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you. Normally I geotag all my images, I will get around to this soon. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

I'm happy the source is trustworthy - it gives a source for the text, the excerpt used in the article is demonstrable looking at Radcliffe on old maps.co.uk - the two sections are clearly labelled on the os map of the time. The site has good reviews and I have seen nothing in the Radcliffe page that has not in some way been replicated by another source. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image used is a perfect copy of the front of the coat of arms on the cover of the 'Borough of Radcliffe (1935-09-21), Charter Celebrations, Bury Library Local Studies' booklet, also referenced in this article. Unfortunately I do not have a copy of it but can vouch for its authenticity. Perhaps the next time I go to the library I will photograph it and reference that document instead. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually looking at the reference the coat of arms has a yellow background, which is the exact texture on the document I mention above. I believe the author has copied his image from the same document. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted that projects like this website tend to be volunteer-led, very much community driven. That said, there are plenty of references to James Hutchinson, here (including what appears to be a professional drawing of the event for which he received his award, which also states he was from Bury Fusiliers). The contributor for the findagrave site is listed here and has worked with army records. There is another record to this soldier's history here which backs up some of what the article source states. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 39 (Farrer...) is an online reprint of a book. The title is Victoria County History of Lancaster: Volume 4 and it should be formatted as a book. Same for current ref 42 (Farrer..)
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CUrrent ref 102 (Buildings in Radcliffe.. ) is lacking a publisher.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper titles such as The Independent should be in italics.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliablity 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 reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support - subject to satisfactory responses to the image and source reviews. The article is comprehensive and, on the whole well-written. It has been commendably researched and I found it engaging. I have a few comments:

  • This sentence: In terms of the subdivisions of the dioceses, up to at most 1535,[109] Radcliffe ancient parish was in Manchester and Blackburn rural deanery. might be better in the active voice. Before 1535,[109] Radcliffe ancient parish was in Manchester and Blackburn rural deanery, based on the subdivisions of the dioceses.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need "Home Office" here? Home Office policing in Radcliffe is provided by the Greater Manchester Police, (no big deal).
I'm no expert, but Home Office policing certainly leaves people in no doubt that the policing is crime-related - there are other forms of policing. I have no real opinion on this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dobb ISBN does not seem valid.
I have removed it and will replace if I find a working number Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to include "(PDF)" for refs 7,36,52,78,79, and 149?
That text appears as part of the citation template. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the GENUK website is reliable, but I have doubts about Civic Heraldy. Thanks for and interesting contribution. Graham Colm Talk 12:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC
Done I have changed the civic heraldy reference to that of the booklet from the library, mentioned above. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I keep meaning to give this a proper read, but for now:

  • The lead has "Radcliffe appears in an entry of the Domesday Book as "Radeclive", held by Edward the Confessor." Edward was long dead at the time of the Domesday survey.
  • The Domesday entry reads: "King Edward held Radeclive [Radcliffe] as a manor. There is 1 hide and another hide belonging to Salford". So before the Norman conquest it was a royal manor. Nev1 (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead again, "by the mid-19th century Radcliffe had emerged as an important mill town at a convergence of cotton mills, bleachfields..."; leaving aside whether "convergence" is the right word, surely bleachfields had given way to chlorine by then?
Use of Chlorine is almost certain however there is little information I have found on the working practices of local bleach works. I have changed 'bleachfields' to 'bleach works'. I think 'convergence' is a good word to use given the significant railway network, canal, roads, and tram system. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toponomy, is "red cliff or bank" Celtic, Roman, English or what?
  • The machines are in the picture are power looms, not spinners, so the caption "A spinning mill in Lancashire" ought to be modified.
Changed to 'textile mill' Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Stephen (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • It lies on undulating ground in the Irwell Valley, along the course of the River Irwell, 2.5 miles (4.0 km) south-west of Bury and 6.5 miles (10.5 km) north-northwest of Manchester. - "South-west" should be one word (unless it's British spelling that I'm not aware of).
  • Today, Radcliffe has an association football club and a cricket club, and facilities for swimming and recreation, and is served by several churches. - This sounds a bit too close to a travel guide.
  • The tithe barn was for storing the local tithes, a tenth of a farm's produce. - This needs a source.
  • The first real mention of industry in Radcliffe was after 1680, in the Radcliffe Parish Registers, which make increasing mention of occupations such as woollen webster (weaving), linen webster, and whitster (bleacher). - Is there a more encyclopedic word to replace "real"?
  • With a weir and goit providing motive power for a water wheel, the factory was built for throstle spinning and the weaving of cotton - a relatively new introduction to Britain. - Change the hyphen to a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash.
  • Shifts were typically 10-10.5 hours in length - Change the hyphen to an endash.
  • inspections by local magistrates of conditions in mills across the county, revealed that unlike many other mills - Remove the comma after "county".
Disagree. If I were reading that aloud, I'd want the comma in there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite this, the textile industry was not the town's major employer as other industries such as mining and paper making were also common. - "Despite this" → "however".
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a known date when the town formed?
  • The last paragraph of the history section could probably be incorporated into the economy section.
  • certain inhabitants obtained an Act of Parliament for making, maintaining, and taking tolls along a Turnpike road - Why is "Turnpike" capitalized?
  • I think "turnpike" should only be capitalised when it's part of the name of a turnpike (ie: Bury to Manchester Turnpike) and the other occurrences have now been de-capitalised. Nev1 (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I'll be back with some more comments later. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from epicAdam:

Lead:

  • I don't understand why "Historic counties of England" is wikilinked in the lead.
  • I'm not sure the lead adequately summarizes the article. It reads more like an economic history that a summary of a modern town.

History:

  • It may be best to break toponymy out into its own section.
  • "There are few places in North West England with a history as long as Radcliffe's" - I looked, and I don't believe the source actually makes this claim.]
An old edit, now removed Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Break out the Wikilink to Manchester Bolton & Bury Canal
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, like in other articles, there's a tendency to use the history section as a "catch all" for miscellaneous facts. Could the information about the stone axe-hammer and the medieval buildings be placed elsewhere in the article where they would have more relevance? It's unclear why the stone axe is important to the history of the town itself.
I'm presently waiting on more information on this axe from the museum that stores it. I inserted this line to give the reader an idea of how long ago people may have lived in the area. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the problem with the information, at present, is that the ax is not dated! The ax should probably follow after the first sentence about mesolithic peopl. The section should probably be better ordered chronologically. Currently, it goes from the stone age to Roman period (quite a jump), then back to the stone age with mention of the ax, then skips over the Medieval period to the 17th century, and then the final paragraph doesn't give any date reference whatsoever. It leaves readers a bit confused. -epicAdam(talk) 18:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand entirely. The book source also does not give that information, so about a week ago I emailed the museum for more details, since it isn't currently being exhibited. I have had an email telling me (a personal email not automated) they're looking into it, so I do not expect a reply until at least the first week of the new year. Presently the implication is that the axe is pre-historic. Your other points are quite valid and I will work on that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the subsection headings - they do little to organize the article.
Respectfully, I disagree. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is too much overlinking of simple words. For example, "factory" and "water wheel".
I think it important to link such things, some people will have no idea what a water wheel is, or a goit, or weir, or why their use was so important, especially with the onset of steam power. I have tried to link only words that may not be in common use any longer. Today 'factory' is a word that many people would use to describe any building where products are made, regardless of method, hence the link. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire history section reads more like an history of the town's mills, which I believe diverges too far off topic. The article tells readers more about the history of the mills rather than the town, which isn't good. The section is in general too long and should probably be downsized to provide a more concise history, creating a subarticle if need be.
The town, in its heyday, was one mill after another. It was a mill town built upon significant reserves of coal and water. I think that the history section should reflect this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The transformation of the area from an industry based upon water power, to one based upon steam power, may not have been without problems." This is editorializing. The history should stick with just the plain facts, allow readers to draw their own conclusions. And again, I believe this paragraph diverges too far off topic.
Respectfully, I disagree. If I had written "was not without problems" then I feel your point would be valid. Including only the story (which is an anecdote in only a single, old and quite rare book) is I feel worthy of inclusion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Governance:

  • The prose is poor in this area. There are too many names that are just thrown in there without indicating how their relevant. For example, "When in 1485 Richard III was killed in the Battle of Bosworth, Thomas Pilkington was captured and executed." Okay... so who was Thomas Pilkington? The then-lord of the parish? Don't make readers guess about the relevance of people mentioned in the text. When people's names are directly mentioned (especially those without their own Wikipedia pages) it should be clear who they are and why they're important.
  • Right, that I saw. However, Thomas Pilkington could have been anybody, not necessarily the landowner. He could have been a son, or a cousin. By mentioning his death readers are left to assume that there were no other Pilkingtons who would have had claim to the property, etc. epicAdam(talk) 17:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography:

  • Third paragraph needs citations. At the very least, for the date of the bridge.
Have removed the date of the bridge, however everything in that paragraph is visible on modern maps or Google Earth. There are no modern references I can find that include such information so would appreciate advice on this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics:

  • The employment statistics should be included under Economy.
Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economy:

  • Is there nothing more to say about the modern economy? What are the major employers? A lot of this can be covered by moving the information out of demographics, but major employers would still be nice.
I agree - the town has been falling apart for the last 20 years, there aren't really any major employers left. I have tried and tried to find more details but so far without success. I will keep trying though. The employment stats list only what people living in the town do - they do not mention where those people work. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landmarks:

  • See discussion under Religion

Transport:

  • Current transport should be mentioned first and foremost in the section as opposed to the rather long history.
I'm not certain I agree but don't particularly object to this - I've written the transport section to give the reader an understanding of the significant transport links the town once had, and which it now does not. If I first wrote about the present transport system, and then about the historic transport, I'm not sure the reader would benefit. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would make more sense to deal with transport in chronological order as much as possible. It illustrates how means of transport have changed, and it's counter intuitive to talk about motorways and then skip back 150 years to talk about the start of the railway. Nev1 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education:

  • Table is just awful. Shouldn't be present here.
Could you state your reasons? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, per WP:EMBED, prose is preferable to lists of information. Second, there is already a hatlink to the list of schools, which can be organized by town. Third, external links such as the school websites are frowned upon when used in the main article text. -epicAdam(talk) 18:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Phase Two opened two years later." ???
re-worded Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religious sites:

  • All the information about historic and listed buildings should be present in its own section; not divided among several sections.
On it Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future plans:

  • This type of information should be included within their respective sections, be it economy or geography.
There is scope for this section in Wikipedia:UKCITIES#Optional_headings but I generally agree. I will look at this. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't decide between simply commenting on this review, which I typically do, or actually opposing the candidacy. I chose the latter because after reading through I felt that the article is absolutely mired in the past. As a historian, I really appreciate the detailed history the editors here have been able to pull together. I believe history should help readers to understand the present; however, that is difficult to accomplish when the present is neglected almost entirely. The article goes too far off topic in many areas, giving a complete history of a specific mill or a listed church, but not tying that information back to the town itself. For those reasons I currently oppose the candidacy. Best, epicAdam(talk) 17:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to agree, but it's difficult to find modern information on a town that currently has little except its history going for it. Your comments are extremely valuable though, and I'll certainly work to improve some of what you've highlighted. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - A reference would be nice for the direct quote in the Sports section (from Nicholls 1900). And use en dashes for page ranges, not hyphens. I fixed one in the aforementioned quote, but more fixes are needed in the references. A piped en dash in the See also link would be good as well. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Williams (ed.) (2003), p. 739.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Radcliffe,_Greater_Manchester/archive1&oldid=1253919928"