Talk:Bagley & Wright

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

'Under Construction' tag removed.[edit]

I have removed the 'Under Construction' tag from this article because it is approaching the content that I envisaged when I started. I would appreciate comments on its improvement from more experienced editors. The article was given a 'C' quality rating some time ago. What can I do to improve this? Ian (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To move forwards you may wish to take this through a formal peer review for feedback on grammar, neutrality, formatting. Following that, the next tier is achieving the Wikipedia Good Article standard. --Jza84 | Talk 11:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes[edit]

I've made some changes to the article, mainly editing for tone. For example, where the subject is unambiguous, it's more approriate to refer to them by their surname. There were also a few instances of the word "we" as in "we know" or "we do not know"; this is rather informal, so I have replaced these with "it is known" or "it is not known" etc. Nev1 (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]