Talk:Clarence Mill

Mills Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mills, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mills 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.MillsWikipedia:WikiProject MillsTemplate:WikiProject MillsMills articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	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.

Cheshire Mid‑importance

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire 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.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assessments

Self aassessment|Added some more.--ClemRutter (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think C class is fair enough. I'm not sure about the importance rating; mid is probably fair as one of the best surviving examples of a Cheshire mill? I don't know anything about the specific topic here, but I'd say to improve towards B class:

the lead needs improvement to cover the article fully; mention it's grade II listed and within the canal conservation area
location section appears unnecessary; why include the distance to Manchester, in particular?
history section is unreferenced and needs some copy edits; what is the relevance of the other mills mentioned? Some of the material under owners could be incorporated here
architecture could do with clarification of which buildings are still standing; ones that are no longer in existence should probably be under history. I'd suggest splitting external architecture from the machinery housed
reference 10 is unlikely to be considered reliable and further sources should be sought

Hope this helps in developing the article! Espresso Addict (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clarence Mill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100129083218/http://www.spinningtheweb.org.uk:80/ to http://www.spinningtheweb.org.uk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]