Talk:Salford/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like another WP:GM WP:FAC in the offing, so I shall be 'harsh'; however the grammar looks OK.Pyrotec (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inital comments[edit]

This is a WP:GA, but let's improve it a bit first.

For my convenience, I'm leaving the WP:lead until last.

  • History -
    • Toponymy -
  • "Sealhford, meaning a ford by the willow trees" - yes it is confirmed by Cooper (& Oxford Dictionary of Place Names), but your in-line citation No. 9 is broken; and Hampson (1972), p. 28, states that Roberts states Salford comes from the Anglo-Saxon "Soel" (the hall) and "ord" (the prince).
    • Early history -
  • Paragraph 2: I assume that reference 17 - *Bracegirdle, Cyril - is a simple typo?
  • Paragraph 4: Ref 22 does give those figures, but in respect of the "Manor of Salford at the Domesday Survey", not the "Hundred of Salford" - are they identical? Conversly Ref 23 states "town and wapentake of Salford" whereas article says "Royal Manor of Salford"!

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Industrial Revolution - OK.
    • Post-industrial decline -
  • The first paragraph is a reasonable summary of what is stated in the three references. Cooper adds a few "green shoots" such as the Greengate and Irwell Rubber Co, but I suspect that both Manchester & Salford are without rubber companies now. Ditto brewing.
  • The first paragraph has an "accurate" summary of a statement made by Copper "By 1939 local coal mining had almost stopped", but I'm not sure that I agree with it. Certainly many old pits in the Manchester coal field had closed by that date; however more closed in the 1950s and I remember Agecroft still working, although it is gone now. Hayes, Geoffrey (n/d but possibly late 1986/early 1987), Collieries in the Manchester Coalfields, Eindhoven: De Archaeologische Pers, isbn 90-6585-033-4, has more details.  DonePyrotec (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of Reference 48 in the the second paragraph is perplexing. The sentence used is a description of the title of the book; I'm not sure why page 47 is being called up, I have the edition defined in the reference and there is nothing on page 47 that verifies the sentence.
  • I would agree with content of the second paragraph. Could a contrast be made between the high-rise flats around the "Precinct" where the old street pattern was (almost) obliterated and a new pedestrianised gridiron plan impossed and the high-rise flats at Kersal, some of which have now gone, were built in a more flexible/curvy layout? I seem to remember the Kersal ones were the first to be built in Salford.
    • Regeneration -
  • Governance -
      • Parliamentary representation -
  • What are those two {citation needed} flags doing in a WP:GAN.
  • Geography -
This looks quite reasonable, but I've done several WP:GANs in these parts (many as you know later made FA), so I've come to expect a very compacted weather summary for the GM Conurbation.
Also there is no geology. From elsewhere in the article, there are coal beds nearby but Salford appears to be Permo-triasic; there is also the (infamous) landslip on the loop of the Irwell at Broughton.
I'm sure I have an article on that landslip, let me have a look around. Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is - [1] Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one that. It has a lot of detail that I have read elsewhere, possibly in the 1970s, but that certainly looks a good book that is worth reading.Pyrotec (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shame there's a few pages missing (curse you Google Books!) but I've added a few sentences explaining the importance of that bend of the river. The image of the tramlines is just next to the landslip - the slip is behind the photographer (me) but you can't really see much. Maybe from the opposite bank. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good shot. I suspect that I have one or two from the mid 1970s. At that time, near where Lower Broughton Road joined Bury New Road, several feet of track were just sticking out of the road surface into thin air. Its changed since then.Pyrotec (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transport -
Some good history in this section, but the article seems to 'run out of steam' towards the end:
  • The first three and a half pargraphs are good from that perspective.
  • The second half of the fourth paragraph - Roads has lost its history. Going back to the early 1970s, for instance, the road network was the A-roads with the M61/2/3 feeding in from the north west and the north east. Going 'south' down the M6, would for instance mean using the East Lancs road or the A57. The M63 seems to have been renumbered to the M60, there is a new M62 and M56; and the more recent M602 brings everything into Regent Road. The current paragraph seems to be organised by 'importance': M602 and then the A roads.
  • If I'm correct, the tram shed on Frederick road servived until the 21st century as a bus depot, when I last passed it only the arch remained as a 'facade'.
  • The fifth paragraph is modern, GMPTE, but I remember SELNEC. Salford Central has been there since 1837 (a few changes of name along the way), but Salford Crescent only dates back to 1987 and wasn't that dependant on the Windsor Link as there was no link between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Victoria?
  • Education -
  • I think half the prose on Salford University was mine (perhaps I should not be reviewing this).
  • One of the consequences of the Robbins Report was that the CAT dropped non-university level courses, so that was separated out into a technical college on the Frederick Road/A6 corner (Salford tech). By (2000?) that seems to have become University College Salford (?) and subsequently merged with the University to become the Frederick road campsus. That seems to have created more colleges to fill the gap.
  • Sport -
  • A bit thin.
  • You have a nice reference for horse racing at Kersal Moor, but that was quite some time ago. It has been held more recently at Castle Irwell (Manchester Racecourse), moved and then came back to Castle Irwell; and I can provide page nos for the Gordon reference (when I find the book).
  • Rugby was the "Willows" - perhaps it moved elsewhere?
  • Salford had dogs (greyhound racing) at Seeford Road (but not anymore).
  • Culture -
  • First paragraph is OK if you choose to keep it as it is. To me the Salford Museum and Art Gallery was the "street" down stairs, which is still there and the Lowry's upstairs which (as the article states elsewhere) have moved to Salford Quays.
  • There was also a mining museum in Buile park, but that has gone.
    • Cultural references -
  • First paragraph - I agree with the 'content' but I'm not sure about the ordering. The two films, for instance, are not in date order or alphabetical order (or reverse date order). Then we have a TV drama (The Second Coming), a novel (Hanky Park), TV soaps, a novel and a film (Hobson's choice) and then a TV sitcom. Again, not date order, media order - perhaps it was the order that the various editor's added them!

....stopping at this point for the day.Pyrotec (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public services -

  • I know where Salford Royal Hospital was, but unlike the current location, its former location is not given in the article; and no date of closure.

WP:lead

A good lead: mentions the difference between Salford and City of Salford; the historical importance of Salford over Manchester; etc, etc. So meets the dual function of Introduction and summary of the main points of the article.Pyrotec (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies.
  • I've fixed citation 9. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "*Bracegirdle" was a typo, now fixed. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agecroft Colliery closed in 1932, but was reopened in 1960 before closing again in 1992. But it's in Pendlebury, part of the City of Salford, not in Salford. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Imperial War Museum North is in Trafford. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your comment about reference #48, and have replaced it with another. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{citation}} tags dealt with. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate those Cultural references sections almost as much as Notable people; anyway, I've pruned it and reorganised it somewhat. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Taste of Honey (1961) was released on DVD (BFIVD513) by the British Film Institute with a 1998 Copyright Date. The inner sleave note (if that is the right word for a DVD) states that the exterior shots were made in and around Salford, whilst the outer one states Salford and Blackpool - the interior shots were Fulham Road, London. I've not yet found any written citations for Second Comming, but I would put the interior Shots as University of Salford's Adelphi Building (mentioned in the DVD?), the one next door and Salford Royal Hospital; and no prizes for naming the exterior shots.Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what your view is of Cultural references sections, but I hate them, as I said above. They're just trivia magnets. My view is that anything worthwhile can usually be said in the body of the article. I mean, does anyone really care that a couple of music videos were shot in Salford for instance? The Smiths and Salford Lads Club connection could also be made more comfortably in the Landmarks section IMO, the film Love on the Dole could be mentioned in the Economy section ... I'd be looking to include only the most significant "cultural references", and to put them in some kind of context whenever possible. I'm uncertain how others would feel about that though. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree with you, especially the "trivia magnets". There is also a great element of personal choice - I enjoy watching Hobson's Choice, Love on the Dole and Second Comming because they show places that I have seen; whereas my mother would only watch Coronation Street. Famous People is even more of a trivia magnet, or it can be.Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. You can have your GA now; but I happy to continue reviewing it - any further changes just won't make any difference to my decision.Pyrotec (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's great, thanks. Please do carry on with your review though, it's been very helpful. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overview[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A Good Article, and it looks to me like another WP:GM future WP:FAC.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    You have some good sources.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

It was a pleasure to review this article: a good example of what a GA should be. You now formally have GA-status, I hope the FAC goes well.Pyrotec (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salford/GA1&oldid=855633054"