Talk:Warburton, Greater Manchester

Warburton, Greater Manchester has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 11, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 11, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Greater Manchester Mid‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warburton Toll Bridge[edit]

The High Level Bridge is not the toll bridge, it is the original bridge that remains so, as the statutory red tape would have probably been too much hassle! Njlawley (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Is Warburton actually threatened by a growing Manchester? I think this ought to be removed. Divy 10:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA Nomination[edit]

This article failed to meet the requirements laid out in 3(a): 3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed).

While I realize that this is a small village, much more could be written about it. There should be information on Geography, climate, demographics of the population, transportation, and I believe a good deal more could be written on the history. Take a look at the FA on Waterfall Gully, South Australia. This is similar to your article in that it is about a village that is now part of a larger city. Also look at the GA articles on Chew Magna and Chew Stoke. These should give you a good idea of how this article should be expanded. Additionally pictures should be included, though are not a requirement for a GA. However, inline citations are now required.

Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

I'm in the process of reviewing this article. This may take up to two days. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review On Hold[edit]

Hello,

I believe this article is close to GA Status, but needs a little bit of work first.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

The prose is excellent, and I'm very impressed to see an article of this size and quality on a village with under 300 people living in it. Excellent use of imagery, and the article appears to be stable. The article appears to be written from a Neutral Point of View.

The lead needs more references. The second paragraph of the lead contains no references, in particular, the statements "with confirmed settlement in the area in the 11th century, and the possibility of earlier habitation.", "There are 17 listed buildings in the village, including the timber framed Grade I Church of St Werburgh, which is at least 700 years old.", and "In 2006, Time Team excavated in the lands of Moss Brow Farm in Warburton, looking for a Roman fortlet." need citations.

I believe this should be relatively easy to complete and allow me to promote this article. Leave me a note on my talk page when you wish for this to be re-reviewed. Great work so far!

This article has been placed on hold for a maximum period of 7 days. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no wikpedia policy requiring citations in the lead. Some editors are of the opinion that there ought to be no citations in the lead, as the lead is a summary of the article, and so citations should appear later in the appropriate place. Others take the view that duplicating the citations in the lead makes it easier for readers to check some of the facts. But whatever view you take, it certainly isn't one of the GA criteria, or even an FA criteria. All GA requires is that references are provided, not that they're provided in the lead. --Malleus Fatuarum 00:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I can accept that. In this case, the article is still on hold until problems with the lead are addressed. If the claim is not repeated anywhere else in the article, then it should be cited in the lead, if the claim is provided elsewhere, then either: Both need to be referenced, or only the non-lead claim is referenced. I want to see some consistency. Once either the claims are all cited in the lead, or the claims repeated later in the article have the references removed, I'll re-review the article. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 00:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain what you're saying. Have you found any claims in the lead that references are not given for, either there or elsewhere in the article? Can you direct me towards any GA policy that supports your view about this so-called consistency? May I remind you that you're supposed to be reviewing this article against the accepted GA criteria, not your own personal preferences? --Malleus Fatuarum 01:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought further about this. And I've changed my mind. There's now only one option. The references must be put in the lead. This section of the Manual of Style has helped me make this decision. And the Good Article Criteria covers manual of style issues. I'm very much aware of what I'm reviewing the article again, I never made any decision based off my own personal preference, and I don't appreciate the comment. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 01:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the references, sorry I didn't do it earlier, but I've only just got online. As for "s' or s's", it seems rather irrelevant as long as the article uses the same form throughout. In my experience, s' is more common than s's. Nev1 17:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Douglas' work[edit]

I understand that the modern trend is to abuse the apostrophe when the name of the possessor ends in an "s", but I have to say that " ... examples of architect John Douglas’ work ..." reads very awkardly to me.

What's wrong with " ... examples of architect John Douglas’s work ..."? It's how you'd be likely to say it, isn't it? --Malleus Fatuarum 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree, for the same reason it's James' car, and not James's car, it doesn't seem to matter too much how it's said. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 01:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. If it can't comfortably be said, then arguably there's little point in writing it. Take a look at the Robert Burns article for instance, where this topic has been discussed and a resolution agreed on. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Promotion[edit]

Thanks for fixing up the issues raised. I'm now satisfied that the article is referenced properly, and as such, now meets all of the criteria. Congratulations, and thanks for all your hard work. I'm impressed to see this kind of quality of article on a village with under 300 residents. If you feel my review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good Article Review. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 01:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Warburton, Greater Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Warburton, Greater Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Warburton, Greater Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]