Talk:Chadderton/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial read-through

Looks quite reasonable overall and some good illustrations; it should make GA without too much difficultly.

These are my initial (sorry, only negative) comments:

A few of the statements made within are wrong:
AVRO did not become part of British Aerospace after WWII - BAe was formed in 1977. Hint: Hawker Siddeley.
The article appears to "read" as if Chadderton was the only cotton town in the area, I thought the whole of the "Manchester basin" was cotton (and rain - hence the cotton).
I had trouble with the relationship between Chadderton and Oldham. It's in the first sentence of the WP:Lead, but I failed to see it the first time round. The article read to me as "Chadderton in Lancashire", then "Chadderton in Greater Manchester", with a bit of Oldham Poor law in the middle; and that raised the question - what's wrong with Oldham?

Please ignore these comments if they are wrong (does not apply to AVRO / BAe comment) - I'll read it in depth (again) tomorrow.Pyrotec (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Thanks for taking time out to review this article. OK, here are my replies:

If Wikipedia is to be believed, the Hawker Siddeley Group owned Avro before the war (c. 1935), but company stayed as Avro, effectively a daughter company (?). The Avro site became part of BAe in 1977 though, so I'll change that now.
You're right about the Manchester basin. Effectively three quarters of what is now Greater Manchester were cotton towns. I suppose that warrents more of a mention. I think I have a source... :)
Re Oldham, I kind of agree yes. The problem probably stems from the Chadderton Historical Society - they're somewhat Anti-Oldham, and the books I've used are written by members of the society. That said, Chadderton is a seperate town from Oldham, just as it is seperate from the city of Manchester. Chadderton and Oldham of course have a shared history, as does Royton and Shaw and Crompton. What is it you think I need to emphasize?

Thanks again, --Jza84 | Talk 21:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I have a copy of Green, Geoff (1988), British Aerospace: A proud Heritage, Wooton-under-Edge: (self-published). In 1928 Roe sold A.V. Roe & Co to Armstrong Siddeley Development Co. In 1935 it merged with Hawker aircraft Ltd to become Hawker Siddeley Aircraft Co Ltd, with AVRO as a subsidiary. By 1959 there was two big groups, Vickers/English Electric and Hawker Siddeley, and a third set of small independents. HS bought de Havilland and Blackburn in 1959. In 1960 British Aircraft Corporation was formed, and it gets quite complicated after that. I think everything ended up in the British Aircraft Corporation, which on privatisation became BAe. Can I answer the other question below, in a long list of minor "faults", but I sort of sensed some "anti-Oldham" - that place we can't name?Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have fixed the problems of "Oldham" in the last 24 hours - possibly I will have no further comments on this topic.Pyrotec (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made these changes as a response to your excellent feedback. I'll try to tackle any other faults you find as they appear. Feel free to be brutal - I won't be insulted! --Jza84 | Talk 23:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Quite a comprehensive wide-ranging article, well illustrated and pitched at about GA-level. Not withstanding this there are, in my opinion, a ~~number~~ small number of faults; ~~and some of the statements are more biased toward "fiction" rather than "encyclopaedia".~~

Woops, the artilce has changed a lot in the last 24 hours, the above comments are now somewhat unkind.Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring WP:lead at this point:

History - first part OK.
Textiles and the Industrial Revolution: is the uncited statement "Supplies of raw cotton were imported from the United States to Chadderton and neighbouring towns" completely correct. Can I suggest that it was exported to Manchester; and Chadderton and neighbouring towns bought their supplies in Manchester? I thought Ferranti had gone bust.Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re the supplies, I suppose it's currently implying they were imported "directly" to Chadderton, which you're right - that wasn't the case. Supplies were imported to Manchester (probably via the Salford Docks) and bought from the traders and merchants there. I'll try and find something. As yes, Ferranti's bust - I used books from the 1990s sorry (I'll fix that!). --Jza84 | Talk 23:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, made these changes. I think it reads much better. Thanks for pointing these things out. :) --Jza84 | Talk 00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're fixing errors faster than I can find them. I'm therefore going to break this loop and award GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A wide-range, well illustrated article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Well done.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
An excellent article.

Congratulations, I've awarded this article GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And thanks for taking the time to review this thoroughly, it is much appreciated. --Jza84 | Talk 20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]