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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:27, 21 February 2009 [1].

---

Radcliffe, Greater Manchester

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...this is the article's second nomination. I have worked on nearly all of the criticisms levelled upon it during its last FAC review, and believe the article has improved enough for a second entry to FAC. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• I still have concerns about the GENUKI site. It's a transcription of another work and published for genealogists to use in aiding their search for ancestors, and also, it doesn't seem to support the information being cited to it. The sentence in the article is "The town initially consisted of two parts; Radcliffe, centred around St Mary's Church close to the border with Bury, and Radcliffe Bridge, a hamlet located to the west, at the crossing of the Irwell." The information on the GENUKI site is "RADCLIFFE, a small town, a parish, and a sub-district, in Bury district, Lancashire. The town stands on the river Irwell, near the influx of the Roach, and on the Manchester and Bury railway, adjacent to the Boltonand Bury canal, 2½ miles S S W of Bury; took its name from a red cliff on the opposite side of the Irwell; consists of two parts, called Radcliffe and Radcliffe-Bridge, about ½ a mile asunder;..." I don't doubt the information in the article is correct, it just isn't supported by the source. I suspect an 'after the fact" attempt at sourcing, honestly.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Gone - it was easier to use an existing source already in the article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Cotton mill.jpg - This image needs a description and an author. Also, is it possible to get a publisher for More Pictures of British History?

It isn't an image I uploaded, but I have inserted a publisher. I have tried and tried for months to find a Lancashire cotton mill image with child labour or similar, but have been unsuccessful. All I can find are US images, which I feel aren't appropriate. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added a description Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you have identified Hoskyn as the author - are you sure he is the photographer? If so, we need a death date for him. (A child labor photo would be wonderful. I assume you have checked labor histories of Britain?) The image also still needs a description. Awadewit (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be much easier just to remove the image for now, since I do not know enough about it (it was in another Wiki article). I have replaced it with a photograph I took of one of the town's remaining textile mills. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Radcliffe Bridge.jpg - The source needs to link to the HTML page, rather than directly to the JPG file per WP:IUP. Also, could you add birth and death dates for William Smith? It makes it easier to verify the license.

I do not know the birth-death dates of William Smith, the image has been used in several books of the town and his name appears in only two that I know of, both published by the Radcliffe Local History Society. I have tonight phoned the head of the society to ask for more information, but his phone is not answering, I'll keep trying though. My initial assumption was that whoever took the photograph would have been at the very least in his 20s, giving a birth date in the 1830s, and that it would be extremely unlikely he survived past 1939. Hopefully I shall have a definitive answer shortly, but if as an authoritative source the society does not know then I think it would be safe to assume that the image is public domain. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've spoken to Peter Roughan of the Radcliffe Local History Society. He is the person who restored the original glass print, which was apparently broken in two. He does not know the date that William Smith died, and knows of nobody else who would be able to help - he thinks that whoever took the photograph would have died well before 1939. Frank Sunderland, who was librarian at the time the print was restored (presumably it was under his care) has passed away. I do not know of any other means of enquiry I can use to ascertain the copyright status of the photograph, and so in my opinion (although I am certainly not an expert on copyright) I think the image is public domain. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the effort you put into trying to get this information. Since some countries use "life of the author + 99 years", not 70 years, and the law changes, it is best to include the information when we have it. We have done our best though. I would include this statement from the historical society about William Smith on the image description page, just in case this question is ever raised again. Awadewit (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Radcliffe looking east 1902 .jpg - We cannot use the "life of the author + 70 years" PD claim for this image since we don't know who the author is. I've changed the tag, but we need to indicate on the image description page why it is impossible to discover the name of the author. Could you add that?

The book from which the photograph is sourced gives photographer/owner names for most images, but not some - including this and another in the article. The book was published in 1902 and I have not seen any of these photographs published in any other books of the town or area. I have tried to find any information on T Hayhurst, the printer and stationer, but have been unsuccessful. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added this explanation to the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:1911 radcliffe manchester.png - Could we get a more specific source for this image?

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume there is no way to link more specifically to this map, since this is a pay site? Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is only a pay site if one wishes to order a printed copy of said map - the map data itself is out of copyright. The site attempts to restrict copyright by superimposing a copyrighted watermarked logo on top of the map, but it is easily blocked out with the correct software. There is, unfortunately, no means of linking directly to the map, and even moreso since the image is a composite of several screencaps from the site, stitched together in photoshop. It is therefore not possible even to use the give co-ordinates, but any user wishing to verify the map can simply enter 'Radcliffe' in the search box, click the relevant town, and proceed directly to the map. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Stand Lane Radcliffe looking north 1902.jpg - We cannot use the "life of the author + 70 years" PD claim for this image since we don't know who the author is. I've changed the tag, but we need to indicate on the image description page why it is impossible to discover the name of the author. Could you add that?

See above answer for Radcliffe looking east 1902.jpg. I am unclear on exactly how to enter this information in the image - could you advise? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added it. Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

These issues should be relatively easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - the issues that were raised in the previous FAC have been addressed. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. A very well-done city article. Karanacs (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Comments. My comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed. When the italics issue is fixed I'll support. Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Weak Oppose for now. I worry a little about comprehensiveness in the history section, and there are MOS issues that need to be fixed.

• I feel like the history section just glosses over things. I don't have a good grasp at all of what the town was actually like before the industrial revolution. The lead contains more detail on the history than is in the body of the article. Is there any information about population in the early periods? Was there a particular noble family that owned the town? How has the town changed or grown over time?

I've expanded upon Radcliffe's history. Much of what is available details mainly the history of the Radcliffe family - details on the parish itself are rather scarce, but I've included as much as I feel I can. Regrettably little information is available on the geography of the area, and no detailed maps exist before the mid-19th century. I have been unable to find population records from the 18th century or before. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is much better. Thank you! Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm confused about some of the italics. Why is the quote from Peel italicized? Why is Bealey's Works (and other words that appear to be company names) italicized? Is History and Traditions of Radcliffe a book (if so, it doesn't need quotes; if it is a short story or pamphlet, it needs quotes but no italics)

I could use some guidance here - how are company names to be referred to? I used italics so the reader would understand why words like 'Works' were capitalised. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ITALICS lists most of the cases where italics should be used. Company names are not bolded or italicized. Quotations are not italicized either (See WP:MOSQUOTE). Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for the pointer, I think I've resolved this issue now. The only instances of italics now are on newspaper names, and mention of 'history and traditions of radcliffe'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder if the Industrial revolution section needs to be subdivided - perhaps into Water power and Coal subsections?

I don't think this would work without significant restructuring of the section. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's just such a looong section to read. I'll bow to your knowledge of the topic, though. Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Its tricky because there isn't really an industry in the town that evolved separately of the others. With the exception of paper, which outlasted other industries by about 20 years, textiles coal and bleaching were pretty much tied together. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• The history section appears to end 1850-1860ish. Did nothing else interesting happen in the last 100+ years?

I've added more information but the basic story is terminal decline of industry, and nothing much else. The town is a shadow of its former self. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Was Radcliffe affected at all by any of the wars fought within England? If so, that might be a good addition to the early history section.
• In reading further, I see that some of the information I've asked for is included in Governance instead of history. I can see why you did that, but it seems out of place to me - I really expected to read much of this in the history section. Would it be possible for parts of the two sections to be merged?

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Quotes need to have a citation at the end of the sentence, even if that means duplication citations in subsequent sentences. This was an issue in the Sports section at least

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll work on these but it won't be in time to pass this FAC review so I'll have them ready for next time. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You've actually got some time - Sandy is out for 10 days, I think. I think Raul is going to do one more pass at closing things in 5 days, but if you are making progress he may leave this open and give you a bit more time. If you're withdrawing the nomination, then please make a specific statement and then someone will close it early. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'll leave it up, I'll try and address your points in the next few days. Pre-industry the town was cottage industries, I'll try to find a reliable source to give an idea of population. Much of the history from 1860 onwards would be conjectural - I have information about factory closures etc, but nothing really that describes a specific pattern other than the sources already used. I'll try and give the reader a better idea of the loss of the town's industry and retail. As for the wars, other than what is already in there there's nothing more I can add unless I can find anything about the Manors. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made the requested changes. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment — the picture in "Culture" should be right-aligned. Jolly Ω Janner 17:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Now right-aligned. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a and 1b. First of all - great work on this! It's actually interesting to read. However, the prose is just okay. Many of the problems are minor but I simply cannot suffer this much passive voice to pass. Some of the sections also seem neglected, especially Landmarks and Culture, with undue weight given to the textile history (if there is this much info, it needs to be split off) and Transport. Remember, just because the information is available, it doesn't all need to be here. Details:

Thanks for the comments. As an industrial mill town the post-medieval culture was limited to public houses and whit walks, and some sport. There really isn't a great deal else to discuss, its a small town that once was heavily industrialised with textiles, coal, and paper - most people with any money lived on the outskirts. The transport section is just as important; roman roads and ancient packhorse routes, several turnpike roads, a canal (and a mining canal that I didn't mention as no reliable evidence of its existence or location is known), 7 railway stations, and a tram network, all packed into an area of a few square miles in a steep-sided valley. The growth and decline of the town is very much mirrored in the transport history. There is much I have left out - stagecoaches, heavy river pollution, several large and important mills, the many collieries around the town, canal traffic, railway sidings, farming, poverty. I've just concentrated on what I feel are the most obvious and important aspects. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On further consideration and re-review of the materials, I see your point. I've removed my 1b objection. --Laser brain (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Use of the passive voice obscures or eliminates the subjects of sentences. Some examples are mixed in below, but someone needs to check for this throughout and correct it where possible.

I've gone through and made as many alterations to the grammar as I feel able to do. You can see the changes here, which also include a few instances of incorrectly formatted dates and inappropriate commas (not additions I made I can promise you that). Let me know what you think. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, nice work! Most of the changes are positive, however, you did introduce at least two troublesome "with noun +ing" phrases that should be reverted. The bulk of my issue still resides with the use of passive voice. You altered a couple of them, but most of them remain. If you don't have a solid understanding of the issue, perhaps you could locate an interested party from the WikiProjects to help? --Laser brain (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your comments are based only on the link above, but since I posted it other users have made changes here. I am about to make a few more and will link these in the next 30 minutes or so. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am just looking at your link. You introduced the ungrammatical "with two road bridges crossing" and "with their populations not necessarily linked to the town", possibly others. I've also now noticed an inconsistency when you begin sentences with prepositional date phrases like "In <year>"; sometimes you use a comma, sometimes you do not. --Laser brain(talk) 17:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok have a look at these changes - they encompass all changes made after the link I posted above. I'll have a look now at the years. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made changes around the years as suggested, differences are here. Some years will still have a comma following, where I felt it appropriate. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Two "with"-prefixed clauses removed, although I'm not sure my changes have actually improved the grammar much. The second, in particular, is difficult to word. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I think "BC" should not be wikilinked per WP:MOSLINK, although it's not really a unit of measure. However, it is very common.

Removed Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• • There are more common units of measure wikilinked.. please remove the links.

Could you provide examples? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I saw acres, km² and sq mi. --Laser brain (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I can only find a single instance of this, but the problem is that the linking is part of the template, with "lk=on". If I remove that, the units will not be linked, but I wonder if the reader might like to know what an acre is - I don't know if such units are taught any longer. I'm ambivalent about the issue, but I don't see it as a problem. What are your thoughts? Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the MoS specifies that they not be linked, and you generally need a very good reason to ignore the MoS. The underlying issue is that there may be people who don't know what that unit is, but it's not this article's job to link them there. Overlinking creates a mess of blue that affects readability. --Laser brain (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• • There is an overlinking problem throughout. Terms like "weir", "goit" and "warp", absolutely. But fumigation, tobacco, foundries, geology, and so on; no please.

The article was recently protected against an anonymous user who linked just about everything in site. Some may have slipped through, so I've unlinked Geology, but I think that fumigation, tobacco, and foundry - they're all quite relevant and the reader may wish to read more. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. However, it won't be a sticking point. --Laser brain (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "... which made possible much deeper pits with improved ventilation." Sounds anachronistic compared to "which made much deeper pits possible"

Reworded Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "With the exceptions of Outwood Colliery and Ladyshore Colliery, all were either worked out or closed by the end of the 19th century." What does "worked out" mean? Need context or link.

Changed to 'exhausted' Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "Radcliffe was at one time home to around 60 textile mills, 15 spinning mills, and 18 bleachworks, of which the Bealey family were prominent owners." As worded, it is ambiguous whether the Bealey family were prominent owners of everything listed or just the bleachworks.

Changed to 'home to 60...mills and 15...mills, along with 18 bleachworks of which the bealey...' Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "The beam engine exists still, albeit heavily overgrown." Lacks clarity. It could exist but not in its original place. Can you specify that it is still in place or still installed?

Tricky one this. I've actually applied to English Heritage for the pump to be preserved as a listed building, the process is ongoing right now. There should be a site inspection shortly but it is on private land and I cannot legally get access without raising suspicion (landowners don't generally like listed things on their property). The image is almost 20 years old but the goit, reservoir, and infrastructure (clearly visible on aerial imagery and from across the river) are still there. I have therefore changed the text to be a little more ambiguous. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• • There seems to be some inconsistency is using spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes for pauses in text; I fixed what I saw but please check throughout.
  • "... with Manchester city centre itself 6.5 miles (10.5 km) south-southeast of Radcliffe." Spot the unneeded word.

This edit was made today, I have removed 'itself' - now reads "Radcliffe forms a northerly part of the Greater Manchester Urban Area,[59] with Manchester city centre 6.5 miles (10.5 km) south-southeast of Radcliffe.[60]" Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• • For tables of data like "Radcliffe Compared", prefer a footer row with proper citations rather than footnotes to column labels.

• I have provisionally added the footer to the first table in the demography section, however I believe the previous format is superior. It allowed the user to see which sources applied to which column or set of data, throwing them all together at the bottom is less user friendly. Nev1 (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I concede the point here. When multiple sources are used, the footer looks silly. --Laser brain (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've undone my edit and the table is now in the original format. Nev1 (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "The first market in Radcliffe was opened in 1851, built by the Earl of Wilton." This is needlessly passive voice, thus making the reader wait until the end to find out who opened it.

Good point, I have changed to read "Radcliffe's first market was built by Earl of Wilton and opened in 1851." Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's still passive. :) --Laser brain (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "Radcliffe was served by several banks including ..." It's not now?

Not those banks, so I have reworded slightly and introduced two banks that are in the town. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• • The section where you discuss the impact of the A665 contains a seemingly POV statement "... although it has exacerbated the decline of the retail outlets in the town centre." According to whom? Which source backs up that claim?

This statement was backed up by a reference on the same line, which I have moved to cover it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• • The whole Landmarks section is choppy and seems neglected. This is really the comprehensive view of the prominent landmarks in the city? My city has half the population, is a cultural wasteland, and still has more to say about the subject.

Pretty much. I can't really add what doesn't exist. Edwardian terraced housing and tatty old workshops aren't really landmarks. I've concentrated on those landmarks which are most obvious; St Thomas's, which can be seen from most places in the town, St Mary's which is the historic source of the settlement, and the Cenotaph. Apart from the few remaining mills which are mentioned elsewhere in the article, and which architecturally are not that unique, I'm not sure what else I can add? The the town is a former mill town which has for decades been in economic decline - most of its history is now rubble. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• • What's the difference between "act in 1821" and "Act of 1836"? Is the latter a formal name of a piece of legislation? If so, shouldn't it be the Act of 1836?

All instances are now 'Act of'. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "Weighing machines were used ..." followed by "These machines were used ..." The redundancy is not ideal, nor is the persistent passive voice.

Fixed, now reads "To prevent damage to the road surface, weighing machines were used at various strategic positions..." Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "Today Radcliffe is home to ten primary schools, and one secondary school, spread across two sites." All 11 are spread across two sites, or the one secondary school?

Now reads "Radcliffe has ten primary schools, and one secondary school which is spread across two sites..." Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I'd prefer not to have a heading like "Today" as it invites constant updating else obscurity.

I understand this is your preference but this heading was recommended in the previous FAC. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah no it wasn't - that was another matter. Another user has changed this to read "Modern services". Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to leave the house for a few hours, but will address the remainder of these points tonight. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support, this is looking good now. --Laser brain (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS#CAPTIONS, sentence fragments should not have periods at the end. Example: "The weir to the west of the town at Ladyshore, built to supply Lever Bank Bleach Works with water." Dabomb87 (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

All done. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dabs look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:57, 21 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.