Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stretford

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

Stretford[edit]

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because ... I believe that that it meets all of the FA criteria and it is the most comprehensive encyclopedia article about this town to be found anywhere. Stretford was an agricultural village that during the 19th-century industrial revolution grew to become the home of the world's first and largest industrial park, still one of the largest industrial estates in Europe today. Dirty, grimy industrial places don't always get a fair shout, so I've tried to do justice to the place. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The article has been steadily improving since it became a GA in July 2007 and has undergone significant change within the past month, widening the scope of the article and improving its quality. I think it fulfils the criteria. Nev1 (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support like the use of word materiel, don't like the fact that it states the current make up of the government - perhaps could be served better by a section "recent politics" or "recent events" - but this is a systemwide issue for city articles, Queries: should the article really have an external link linking to http://www.rhaworth.myby.co.uk/oscoor_a.htm?SJ82819491_region:GB_scale:25000? I note that culture and sports are under different headings, and Demographics and Religion are also not within the same heading, it's different than in the Russia article currently FAC - could you comment on this? In addition, I feel that it could use improvements in term of the writing style. - example: "Stretford town centre is busy during the day, but there is very little in the way of a night-time economy" - better would be "[While] Stretford town centre is busy during the day, but there is very little in the way of a night-time economy" or, more concise and to the point: "Stretford town centre is busy during the day, but there is very little in the way of a night-time economy". - The first sentence should actually summarize the topic. Thanks for reading this comment, I am very amenable to expound on anything I have said in this comment, and discuss anything at all, feel free to contact me.--Kiyarrllston 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason religion and demography are not under a single section - and why sports and culture are also different secitions - is to comply with WP:UKCITIES, a guideline drawn up by members of WikiProject UK geography to aid writing about settlements in the UK. They are guidelines rather than inflexible rules and it would be easy to integrate the sports section under culture. I don't think there's any need to merge demography and religion as both are fairly well developed and have little overlap as they now stand. Nev1 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a slight copyedit to the Economysection along the lines you suggested. As for the link to http://www.rhaworth.myby.co.uk/oscoor_a.htm?SJ82819491_region:GB_scale:25000, I don't know the history, but every UK city article sems to have the same link to that set of mapping tools. Even though I'd agree that there isn't presently an awful to say about Stretford's culture I'd prefer to keep it separate from the Sport section if possible. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments This article is looking good but a few questions/comments before I can support:
 Done. Just an oversight, no reason why the link wasn't there before. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that Thomas de Trafford probably owned Trafford Park in 1847, but Stretford was just an agricultural village then, and had seen many de Traffords come and go over the centuries. Certainly I've come across no evidence that Sir Thomas had any significant impact on Stretford anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Manchester Ship Canal is mentioned in both general history & also in transport history - is there a particular reason?
 Done. On reflection, I don't think it's particularly relevant to the transport history section, so I've removed it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Stretford Local Board of Health really assume responsibility for all "local government of the area" as is implied?
  • That's what the source says. I quote: "Local Government had previously been under the jurisdiction of the parish vestry ... as urban growth took a hold they quickly became outmoded and were replaced. Stretford Local Board was created in 1867 and took over the role of governing the following year." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the sentence "The Trafford Metropolitan Borough local government area called Stretford is divided into the wards of Clifford, Longford, Gorse Hill, and Stretford." a little confusing because of 2 occurrences of Stretford.
 Done. I've tried to elaborate on that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the units square miles & km² be wikilinked in the geography section?
 Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the earthwork Nico Ditch was an administrative boundary should it be in geography or governance (or even history)?
Nico Ditch is only probably an administrative boundary, it's not certain, so I don't think it should go into the governance section. It could however go into either the history or geography section as there is some overlap in this case. Nev1 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 paragraphs in demography are not cited. I presume ref 46 applies but this might need to be made explicit.
 Done. Citations added. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the economy section we read about Stretford Metrolink tram station but the transport history section makes no mention of the modern tram system, although I see there is a later transport section
 Done. I've added a bit explaining that the pre-existing railway line was converted to the Metrolink in 1992. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manchester Airport's claim to being the largest airport outside London might need a citation?
 Done. I changed the claim from largest to busiest, and added a citation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In education "higher proportion than average of pupils" is unclear - is this the average for Manchester, England or what?
 Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the one or two sentence paragraphs in culture be combined in some way?
  • I've done what I can with the culture section. Any more suggestions gratefully received. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The books cited in the references should have the year of publication & publisher + ISBN if possible.
The bibliography at the end has ISBNs and publication dates etc, all books used in the notes section appear in the bibliography. The article uses a variation of Harvard referencing. Nev1 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of these can be fairly easily dealt with and then I will be able to support.— Rod talk 22:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All seem to have been appropriately dealt with so now changed to support.— Rod talk 17:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Nev1. Appears to comply with FAC critera, good job. Rudget. 19:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • "being the target for some heavy bombing" - "some" is redundant
 Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pdf sources need labelling
 Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The most southerly part of Stretford lies within the flood plain of the River Mersey, and has historically been prone to flooding" - aren't all areas in flood plains historically prone to flooding?
 Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "filled with disinfectant to disinfect any coins" - repetition
 Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "formally unveiled in 1923, by the Earl of Derby" - does he have an article to link to?
 Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the late 19th and the early part of the 20th century" - "early part of" is redundant
 Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's an overuse of "with" as an additive link
  • I removed one instance where I thought its use was dubious. Are there any others you object to? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't the Culture and cultural references section just be called Culture?
  • It could, but that would leave the Invention and discovery subsection dangling. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Currently all 12 of the councillors" - this may become outdated
 Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many instances of "located" are redundant
 Done. All but two removed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Very substantial improvement has taken place since then" - is the "very" necessary?
 Done. No, it isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Captions shouldn't have fullstops if not complete sentences.
 Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Portal links belong in the "See also" section. Epbr123 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't have one. Is it's current position acceptable/inline with MOS? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it will look odd, but under the current guidelines a see also section would have to be made just for the portal link. Epbr123 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this part of MOS or other guidelines? It would look odd indeed and I'd rather be sure. Failing that the portal is linked in the county navigation template. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Link to portal removed. Not really needed anyway, as it's already in the county navigation template immediately below. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did any significant events occur in Stretford between 1260 and the 1820s? Epbr123 (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very little it seems. I've added a paragraph to the History section explaining. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but it would be nice to see the opinion of a non WP:UKGeography member before the article is promoted. Epbr123 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, comprehensively referenced article with a broad scope. Regan123 (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Stretford&oldid=185772537"