Talk:Ladyshore Colliery

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy 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.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mining Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's 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.

Ladyshore Colliery

A few users have added a fair bit to Ladyshore Colliery, I wondered if the rating still applied? Parrot of Doom (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's certainly not a start class as the WP:GM tag has it, at first glance it might even pass muster at B class. I think the important thing is how the article can be improved further. For example, twice in the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal section the prose is a little vague. "Former collier Sid Dyer described his role and how he worked the horse-drawn boats when he started working at the colliery" and "Alex Waterson who was the last of five generations of Ladyshore canal boat builders described the building process in his book"; it feels like something's missing, ie: the descriptions.

Perhaps the Trade Union disputes section should be worked into the history section as it's a little short and is certainly part of the history of the colliery. Could the Women and children in the mine section be expanded to include working conditions in general? Also I think as it stands now it needs more references. The Mines section is very short, could more be added on when there were opened or closed, their importance within the whole of Ladyshore Colliery? If this causes duplication of material, perhaps the section should be integrated somewhere else. I'm not quite comfortable with the Terminology used section, I understand what's trying to be done here, but I think explanations of specialist terms should be included in the main body of the article rather than in their own section. Hope this helps. Nev1 (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything that Nev1's said, and I too think that it just about passes muster as a B-class, so I've made the change. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, that's some quick editing! Myself I know little beyond the original article although I did manage to get the photos. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on mines as shown in the terminology refers to the actual coal seams, Lancs coal miners called the seams mines. I have more info on them but it tends then to put things in the realm of geological rather than mining as there is not much you can say about coal seams without getting technical. I could expand it to include the actual types of coal and what they were used for, but I don't want to go too far into geology unless folks here think it is appropriate. Thanks for all the improvements and additions......Phil aka Geotek (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if anyone has more information on the closure? It has a line or two but little else, did it become economically unviable, did the market for it's coal disappear? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find out much about the closure, it appears that the canal breach took away the Manchester market and the owners never really recovered from all the adverse publicity over the court case.... that being the case, I decided not to put in something which can't be referenced. Phil aka Geotek (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]