Talk:Askam and Ireleth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rewrite

Ok, I have just completed a fair rewrite, with sources. Now, I plan on taking some photos when I find the time. J Milburn 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, never had the time to look up all the sources ! Think the merger source might not exist because the length of time over which it took place probably made it unnoteworthy Kijog 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Right then, I think that should be removed then. I am gonna head out, armed with a camera, later today, and get some pictures, so showing the 'Welcome to Askam and Ireleth' sign may give a good enough idea of the fact that they are merged. I intend to take the following pictures- two churches, two schools, two road signs ('Welcome to Askam and Ireleth'/'Welcome to Ireleth') panoramic views of the village, the station, the pier, the slag banks, the jubilee fountain, and the brick works. However, if I can't find a bike with tires, I may have to shorten that list slightly. Anything else that would make a good picture? I have lived here all my life, but I don't actually know where the Life Boat station is...J Milburn 13:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The inshore rescue station is on the 'harbour' to the northern side of the slag pier, end of Sharp/Steel Streets. Kijog 15:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Update on the finding a source to prove the merger, Barrow B.C. has an online map resource which includes an MoD aerial map from wartime still showing a gap between the two. Still, might be difficult to reference using a single URL Kijog 10:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I just don't think it is gonna be easy to find a map from the mid eighties, and a map from the early nineties, to compare and say 'Look, they are separate there, but they are not there!' Also, I reckon that it could count as original research, and that it isn't awfully relevant anyway. Perhaps if we link to Google Maps in the 'External links' section, people will be able to see for themselves how the villages are basically physically one, and the fact that it is a pleasant day today, and it is the weekend, means I can finally go and get some photos. The fact that they share a symbol, share a sign, are the same administratively and are melded on a map should portray the fact that they are basically the same with verifiable information, and no need to mess around with umpteen questionable sources. J Milburn 12:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Great Britain map

Can anyone use this? It would be nice if we could get one of them onto the article. J Milburn 13:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

have done, and went the whole hog with an infobox Kijog 15:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha! Brilliant! When I have got hold of some bleeding images (Will have to wait for a non-rainy day...) This will be a great article! J Milburn 15:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Church

The information about there being a Catholic church in the village was removed, despite being sourced, and I have since realised that there is no Catholic church, but that the site I used as a source failed to mention the C of E church. I have contacted the site about the matter. J Milburn 15:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Transport

Transport section is excellent, but we are gonna need some sources for it. J Milburn 18:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

'Location of villages'

As far as I can see, the box that has been added is a few degrees off, in terms of which direction is North. A map source would be nice, as it appears to me that this disagrees with what is said. Or, at least, it is if 'Up=North', as I have always thought it does.J Milburn 19:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I treated it as the order in which you would find the different villages, as there is no way of expressing the degrees of difference (e.g NNE, NE, NEE etc) between Marton, Lindal, Dalton and so on in such an inforbox. I don't think there is any point in referencing this information, firstly because we have a map reference earlier on in the article and secondly i don't think this infobox is designed to express geographical reality, rather its geography with respect to relevant Wikipedia articles.

On another point, I don't agree with Robdurbar's removal of the railway line infobox, as I think this is information better suited to this page rather than the Askam railway station page. I fear this Stub will remain a Stub because of a lack of interesting information about what is essentially a countryside railway stop and I would argue the information is better held in this page under a subheading. Kijog 10:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think if the station actually is allowed an article, no doubt someone at WikiProject:Trains or something thinks it is, we should just mention the fact that Askam has a station, and have an even briefer overview of the station than its own article, and link to it. It looks slightly more professional within the article, in my opinion. J Milburn 12:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I accept your point - we'll just have to add some more info to the railway station article! Kijog 17:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have two photos that I will add to it now. J Milburn 19:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added the photos, and a little info. There is more that can be said, and it needs to be sourced. I am gonna search for a template for an article on a station, see if I can find an approrpaite WikiProject, and improve the article. (Forgot to add the timestamp to this comment, so here is a later one, just to point out that it was me- J Milburn 23:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC))

Images

Well, I finally got them, and they aren't awful, but it would be better if the weather was a little better. I also have 'Image:Askam and Ireleth-View from cemetary-17.12.06.jpg' and a bunch I didn't bother uploading. Any others that people want I will be happy to get, if you give me some time. The important picture with the sign saying 'Welcome to Askam and Ireleth' didn't come out well, I will get another when I can. J Milburn 19:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we move the public buildings gallery to the bottom, think it makes an unatural break in the text with only politics left at the bottom? Or alternatively move the public buildings section to the bottom of the text? Kijog 21:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Move all the public buildings stuff to the bottom, I say. J Milburn 22:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Done!Kijog 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Brick works

The brick works is something that we have completely neglected to mention. I do not have time to confirm this now, but I have heard that it once had the tallest chimney in Britain. That means it may even be worthy of its own article, and certainly deserves a mention here! J Milburn 19:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As a fact it sounds pretty trivial for an article on its own, but teh brickworks are a major part of understandthing the towns, I agree. --Robdurbar 20:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that occured to me the other day, think it might struggle to fulfil the claim of tallest chimney though! Kijog 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and a another thing - I think we could incorporate some text on the Askam and Ireleth logo somewhere. As far as I know it was designed by the Parish council a few years ago. A better pic to illustrate it would be the sign on the A595 entering Askam from the Dalton Bypass. (a polite request! I used to live in Ireleth but I'm not around anymore to do any snapping!) Kijog 21:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Three points- firstly, I have been told that it used to be the tallest (over 100 years ago) and that it has had some of the height cut down. Secondly, I was under the impression that the logo was designed by a pupil at Ireleth school- again, not something I have a source for beyond a vague recollection of being told it. Finally, I did get a picture of that sign, but, by the time I got there, it was evening, and the flash made the sign unreadable. I will get a picture of it as soon as I can. J Milburn 22:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you learn something new everyday! From what I have had a look at, the brickworks have been around since 1845, so there's nothing to say it wasn't true at the time. The Ireleth pupil designing the logo rings a bell as well, when I get a chance I will try and draw a copy, because it's not the most complex logo in the world! Photo work much appreciated, reckon Askam and Ireleth beats every other article for Cumbria! Kijog 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good article?

When I rewrote this, I thought that I might be able to make a good article out of it, and with the amounts of contributions we have had recently, I don't think this article is far from it. I think there are a couple of pictures that we still need to get, and a few pieces of information we still need to get down, but I think it is very in sight. What is everyone's opinion on the matter? J Milburn 21:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why not? I think we need a bit more on the writing side of things (I'm a journalist, I would say that!). It's a little too fact/reference heavy for it to be an easy to read article. In terms of topics needing more coverage: geology/wildlife/brickworks/areas (Mark McLean makes a point somewhere about which came first: The Lots or the station end?)/Demographics (I have some stuff collated about that). The only other thing is suggestions of the correct order of things. Our wildlife/enviroment/politic etc etc has clearly outgrown its space and become a little unwieldy with too many different subsections. Suggestions on a discussion page please! I would go for three overarching sections: History / Environment / Nuts and Bolts (stuff like the politics, demographics, transport but with a more 'encyclopaedic' name!) Kijog 18:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Bare in mind that when you put it up as a candidate, someone will review it and if it's not adequate, give you comments on what could be improved and a week to make improvments. Plus there's usually a 2-4 week wait before it gets reviewed, so plenty of time to work on it up till then. --Robdurbar 20:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated it. There are a couple of things I want to touch up, but judging from the dates on the other articles in the category, we have ages. J Milburn 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

References

Ok, I have a few notes about the references. First of all, I reckon that if we add any more, it would look best if we had them in two columns. Secondly, I dislike the way that we have no citations in the opening paragraphs. I only brought these up because it has been said that the article is very citation heavy- I think it looks bad that we have no citations in the opening, when the article is citation heavy. Also, the reshuffle of the intro has removed a few citations that are needed for the infobox. I am gonna have a mess around with these things now. J Milburn 22:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Point accepted, I tend to operate a write first, reference later policy as it's no always easy to write good English at the same time as doing the fiddly references. I have a good reference lined up for the population and intend to lob in a table as well for good measure. Agree with the two column idea. Kijog 08:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming/History

Some notes about the names of the villages have been included in naming, some have been included in the history section. Should they all be moved into one place? Perhaps 'naming' should simply be used for a discussion of whether the villages are seperate, and whether they should be '-in-Furness', where as the history section should have the origin of the names, the historical names and the Ireleth/Kirby-Ireleth confusion? J Milburn 23:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would go for the one section option. The -in-Furness question essentially only applies to Ireleth while the separate villages question could be tacked onto the Askam section (as it was second). Good work for nominating the article, if it comes off by my reckoning it would be the only 3rd place in the UK to make that grade. Kijog 20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Hampshire, London and Manchester. More comparable with this article is Evanton and especially Shaw and Crompton. So there are already a few, but we certainly would contend for the smallest place! J Milburn 21:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be far superior to Barrow-in-Furness, anyway! --Robdurbar 11:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

GA hold

Fix footnotes 2/7/22, they're external jumps. Para 2 of lead is long and awkward. See if you can smooth it. Add a latitude/longitude to the infobox or use coor templates. Scan for footnotes, they go AFTER punctuation with no space, you have several more. Rlevse 19:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on the footnotes in about an hour, I am off for a short while. Kijog/Robdurbar/Anyone else, do you think you could add the long/lat, and sort out the too-long paragraph? J Milburn 19:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against para 2 being cleared up, looking back at the word 'whereas' I humbly repent my error :-), but surely Askam's as the Start of the Industrial Revolution could be kept as one of its most important 'claims to fame'? Also, without redesigning the whole 'England place infobox', how do we put in the co-ordinates? I see Shaw and Crompton have reached good article status without. Finally, I don't want to seem to be telling more experienced editors what is right and wrong, but IMHO references should be closest to the statement they support, as some sentences contain more than one piece of information Kijog 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added the fields to the infobox, however, I have no idea what the longtitude and latitude of Askam and Ireleth actually are. J Milburn 22:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the lat/long, having actually bothered to look at Template:Infobox England place! I think the values are 54.1888 (N) and -3.2042 (W) assuming the corner of the A595 by the railway station, which I think is used as the 'centrepoint' of Askam Kijog 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and put them in - not sure if the co-ords map is as good as the other one.... Kijog 23:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference thing doesn't mean that refs can't come next to the info, but that if they're next to a piece of punctuation, they come after it (as the fake refs in the next sentence do). So, if a reference is referring to something in the middle of a phrase then its fine to come after it; but if there's a piece of punctuation there, the ref comes after that. --Robdurbar 09:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

BUT there is NO SPACE., also for the coords, they are not required but a very nice thing to have, esp if you want FA eventually. That was a suggestion, I guess I should have been clearer. Rlevse 12:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass: I did some sample edits for you. For more improvement, learn to use the cite templates better and be consistent in ref formatting. Perhaps add culture and education sections. Web refs should have title, url, accessdate, and publisher as a minimum. I showed how to fix ref 42 and show publisher as a sample. Rlevse 13:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Aim for featured? I'm game. J Milburn 17:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Geographical features

An editor contacted me reccomending that we mention some of the geographical features- they mentioned Askam wood and the various rivers specifically. I am not going to follow up on this now, but it is something that is certainly worth considering. J Milburn 17:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I mentioned a few streams, although I'm not too sure of their names, or indeed if they are a large enough feature to even have names. However, the stream which runs through Askam/Bird's Wood is called Daly Beck (unsure on the spelling) I believe. TheTrojanHought 18:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Having looked up "Askam Wood" on Google, I have found some rather interesting information. According to http://www.barrowbc.gov.uk/PDF/HousingChapterMaps.pdf it is "Askam Wood" and the stream flowing through it is "Greenscoe Beck" which joins "Blea Beck" behind the houses that are on the way into Askam. TheTrojanHought 18:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To Do list

I have made a to-do list- I think it is better that we have it here than two- one on my page, and one on Kijog's, along with the various points raised here on the talk page. Feel free to add to it, I can see it being a useful feature. J Milburn 18:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed text

I have just trawled through, dealing with the references. However, I have had to remove the following text, because the reference provided didn't actually contain any information on the subject.

“ It was originally clustered along a stream, named 'Hole Beck', about half a mile up the hill from the estuary below. It was also the junction of four roads passing through the area, namely:

• The 'Sands' road, named 'Marsh Lane' in maps of the 1850s, heading down the hill towards the shore, where it met one of the possible routes for crossing the treacherous tidal sands of the Duddon at low tide.
• The lane heading north along a ridge towards Kirkby-in-Furness. Part of these two roads form today's A595 main road.
• The road leading up the stream's valley towards the hamlet of Marton.
• The road east over the hills towards Dalton-in-Furness.

”

However, I think the information is correct. If anyone has a source, please add it back in, and cite the source. J Milburn 19:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we would go about that. The information exists on the maps database of Barrow Borough Council but it appears 'unURLable'. Is there a ruling on 'visual' references? Otherwise, I would say there is no reference needed because they are all real places which still exist, where do you draw the line on 'sky is blue' refs? Apart from that, if it was good enough to pass the Good Article status why remove it now? It adds content, and without getting too much into the metapedians vs exopedians debate, good content makes for good articles, not good references. Kijog 10:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If it exists on a map, you could cite the map, as long as you are not drawinbg any conclusions for it, which would constitute original research. There is a policy about things being obvious, but I can't find it right now, and I doubt this would be covered. Is there an online version of the map, even if it is un-URLable? I can't search right now, I am at school. Basically, I reckon if you do have a map source (whether it is a virtual or hard map) that shows these four roads and the river, dated appropriately, then there would be absolutely no problem. This was the only source that I couldn't sort out with the new information that would be needed for featured. J Milburn 15:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, all the maps are there at {[1]] namely the 1840's and 1850s maps, I don't know what you're quite implying by 'drawing conclusions' from a map, my intention was solely to expand some of the history (of which there is a large gap) and present some of that information in a written form (as we don't have copyright to reproduce maps). I find this whole debate unconstructive when the same energies could be dedicated to expanding our pages, but there you have it. Kijog 10:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

After some discussion with other users on the IRC channel, I think we do have the right to reproduce the older maps. They work as a source, it is mostly my fault for not using the site well. I am working on this issue now. J Milburn 11:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have now adjusted the citation, as well as uploading the colour coded map image, so that people can clearly see the map that you are talking about. I have discussed it at length with other editors, I am certain that it is public domain. J Milburn 14:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• The Other buildings of interest and Schools sections are currently too short to warrant their own subsections.

 Done Sort of. J Milburn 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Text shouldn't be sandwiched between two images.

 Done I have left the signs, but they are portrait, and I think they are needed, so perhaps an exception could be made here? J Milburn 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Bullet points should be avoided when possible.

 Done J Milburn 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Single years shouldn't be linked.

 Done I presume decades and centuries are alright to link to? J Milburn 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I've delinked them. Epbr123 21:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Em dashes should be unspaced.

 Done Epbr123 21:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• The gallery would be better near the end of the article.

 Done J Milburn 21:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Two of the paragraphs in the Location and transport section are too short to be their own paragraph.

 Done J Milburn 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 20:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Epbr123 23:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Crossley, Furness Iron and Steel Works

A contemporary accunt by William Crossley at http://www26.us.archive.org/details/proceedings187100inst

Paper at http://www26.us.archive.org/stream/proceedings187100inst#page/118/mode/2up

Plates at http://www26.us.archive.org/stream/proceedings187100inst#page/117/mode/2up onwards

Dates to 1871 an is mostly a description of the iron works at Askam, and may be of use.83.100.172.78 (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)