Jump to content

Talk:Glossop

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeGlossop was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 29, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

Region

[edit]

Glossop is in the East Midlands region, not North West, as stupid as that is, it's true.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.175.133 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

only for european elections, I believe. Having lived there for a long time I think everyone considers it in the north-west Murray.booth 22:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's in the East Midlands. David (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some services, I believe, are provided on a North-West basis. Transport is by the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, whilst the NHS Trust is one that is based in Tameside. I believe regional television is also set to the North-West (such as BBC North West). I think this distinction ought to be made clearer in the article as these are notable geographical discrepencies. It is however, as correctly stated, within the county boundaries of Derbyshire, officially or otherwise. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Layout and contents

[edit]

Would benefit from a trim and copyedit - perhaps more closely sticking to the recommendations of WP:UKCITIES? -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the recent good faith edits have got out of hand, and much material is repeated from other articles- when a wikilink would be more appropriate. This appears to be diverging from
WP:UKCITIES- and unfortunately needs to be culled. ClemRutter (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have started to cull some of the material, and revert some of the formatting mistakes. The article still needs a good shaking, as there is a confusion of whether this article is about the settlement or the former Borough of Glossop- I lack the detailed reference books down here to do a proper job. Help needed. It would be a shame to lose the other contributors enthusiasm.
ClemRutter (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of quantity this page is brilliant. As noted there are some style issues ... but then these things take time to learn. Hopefully we can work on whats missing with as much urgency as removing surplus. My only immediate comments are the diagram of streets around the station. Maybe I need to read more but I couldnt see why it was there. Also the NHS logo seems a bit OTT. Could some more of the borough council stuff could be on the borough council page ... which is also better than the norm. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done a bit of trimming- apologies if it seems overdone. I've removed some names of current holders of offices, some information which could be retrieved by following an embedded link and some "boosterism" (but not the bit about the park with the commanding views- it's higher than the Peak District?) Ning-ning (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken on board the comments from Jza84 and suggestion from Victuallers. I have compared Glossop with Milnrow which follows WP:CITIES and has achieved GA status. I have identified text which is clearly a COPYVIO, and identified some images that are COPYVIO. I am proposing to do a BOLD major edit, and suggest that it would be a good idea if newbie editors had a look at WP:CITIES WP:BETTERand WP:MOS so they understand where I am coming from.ClemRutter (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision started

[edit]

I have posted the revised sections. There is more to follow, SVGs and images. Peggy Davies: Annals of Glossop is very good. I now have two books by Tom Quayle which have a lot of useful material on Cotton Industry and Manchesters Water.ClemRutter (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Glossop/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail
  • There are many poorly sourced and unsourced sections. These include "Roman and Saxon", "Governance", "Geography", "Climate", "Economy", "Parish Church of All Saints", "Transport", "Schools and further education", "Culture", "Emergency service provision", "Twin town", "Literature and the media", and "Notable persons".
  • There are countless blatant MOS violations, such as the inclusion of external links mid-prose, and grossly inconsistent date formatting. The article has not undergone a significant copyedit recently and could really use one.

Media spat.

[edit]

Local media includes . The Glossop Advertiser newspaper owned by the Manchester Evening News, Glossop Life, a quarterly magazine delivered to 10,000 homes. The Glossop Chronicle stopped publishing for around 4 weeks in 2012 while a new owner took over, During this time The Glossop Gazette was launched, several issues were printed but have not been for several months. The Publishers of The Sheffield Star launched a Glossop version of The Buxton Advertiser on the 28th June 2013.

Has been proposed and reverted- can I ask that the conversation takes place her- if it is necessary at all.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'4s 2d or swing strike'

[edit]

This appears to be a reference to this incident but there is no reference to it in the John Doherty (trade unionist) article linked. I resurrected this link and wording from an older version after it was broken during this edit. I know nothing about the history of trade unionism so I can't do any better than this, but wanted to fix the obvious error. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Glossop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glossop. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Glossop. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glossop&oldid=1207444317"