Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Altrincham

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

Altrincham

[edit]

I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because it conforms with WP:UKCITIES and I think it is a well developed article with plenty of references and meets the criteria of FAC. Any constructive criticism is welcome, thanks. Nev1 12:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Some more copyediting needed. For example:
    • "There are a total of 5 Grade II Listed Churches in Altrincham" - spell out 5, "a total of" is redundant
    • "lower than the 21.3% all of Trafford" - missing an "in"
    • "including the 18th century Dunham Massey Hall" - hyphen needed
    • "All of these churches have been Listed Buildings since 1985" - redundant "of"
    • "There is currently one synagogue" - "currently" is redundant
    • Some incorrect dash usage. Epbr123 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some more:
      • "Since 1290 Altrincham was a Free Borough, a self governing township"
      • "a population of around 67,000" - "around" isn't needed, it's indicated by the 0s
      • "Running through Broadheath in Altrincham is a Roman road that links the Roman fortress of Chester (Deva) and the fort of York (Eboracum)" - comma needed either after Broadheath or Altrincham
      • "and is one of only six Grade I Listed Buildings in Trafford" - is the "only" needed?
      • The economy section needs info other than stats, such as on local industries. Epbr123 15:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a few examples of several reference superscripts running one after the other (eg the demography stats). If you run them all together, separated by <br />•, it looks a whole lot neater without losing any information. I'd do it myself, but I'm tight for time. Mr Stephen 16:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Doesn't that start a new line, which would lead to a lot of white space? Nev1 16:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've obviously not made it clear - sorry. See Intelligent design for an example of it in use. In markup it's
<ref name=stats>{{cite web ...}}<br />•{{cite web ...}}</ref>
and then <ref name=stats/> as required. Mr Stephen 17:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I get the idea now, thanks. Nev1 18:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - passes FAC criteria in my opinion. All requirements here have been filled out. I've used this page as a template for other projects before, and as for the comprehensiveness... — Rudget speak.work 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose A few issues with the Sport section, which tends towards recentism. In addition to the two wins of what is now the Conference, which in the present day would earn Football League status, the football club is primarily noted for FA Cup "giant-killings" in the 1970s and 80s, beating several Football League teams and achieving draws against top division teams Everton and Spurs. The town's two previous ice hockey teams (Trafford Metros and Altrincham Aces) are not mentioned, nor is the Devonshire Road rink which for a number of years was the feature of Altrincham best known by those from other places in the region. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no one's perfect, I don't follow football or ice hockey. If you've got material to add, with sources, go right ahead, you certainly seem to know your stuff. Is the old ice rink notable though? I agree it was well known in Altrincham, but it has been superceded. Nev1 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some more material about the football club. I'd say the old rink deserves a mention as it was the only rink in the county. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now rewritten the part about ice hockey, rendering my opposition redundant. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to oppose, since, like similar articles with ?similar authors, the prose needs careful copy-editing throughout. Do I need to provide examples, or are you willing to engage others from related articles in the field to sift through it? Tony (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Clearly a Good article (and officially designated as such), I have a few concerns with the article. Namely:
    • Per WP:LEAD and WP:MOS, the lead section possibly needs a rethink. I had a blast myself at the first paragraph, but the second seems disproportionatly large, and the third is a lone sentence. I know Altrincham to be one of the more glamorous (I am from Oldham!) or at least desirable towns in Greater Manchester, and a hub for upper-middle-classes and large detached homes - I would expect something about this in the lead (if a source can be found).
    • "completion of the Altrincham section of the Bridgewater Canal in 1776" - was it actually called the Altrincham section or was it the opening of the canal upto Altrincham? Also, according to a source I have, this part of the canal was opened in 1775 not 1776 (which is when the entirity of the canal was opened). I would also consider changing the word "prosperity" with "Further economic development"' in the lead about this.
    • Although not a barrier to FA as such, some of the images appear a little banal and don't seem to do the text justice. All of these are images from Flickr that have a Creative Commons licence that may allow them on Wikipedia/Wikicommons. There are even some intersting ones from the early 1900s. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3 have been sorted out, one needs to have a new source found because the original is 404 (that's why a chached link was used). What should be done about the images of England links, are they unacceptable? Nev1 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the Images of England links (I think), that just leaves the missing page at the council web site. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Many of the sources have no identifiable publisher, examples:

  • Anon. The History of Hale One Act Festival. Retrieved on July 10, 2007.
  • Anon. The Club Theatre History. Retrieved on July 10, 2007.

See WP:CITE/ES and please complete all sources to include article title and publisher, last accessdate on all websources, and author and publication date when available (it's not necessary to list "anon"). Did reviewers check reliability of sources, considering publishers aren't listed? Also, a google cache is not a reliable source, and that needs to be replaced. This source, for example:

has an author and publication date that are not listed in the footnote, and it is used more than once (please see WP:FN on how to use named refs for repeat sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Continuing to oppose until the MOS breaches are fixed. There are prose glitches, too. For example: I've fixed the first two units; the others need to be reversed. Minus sign or en dash in geog. coordinates. Read about final periods in captions, and "Words as words" at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Italics. MOS: no hyphen after "-ly". 4 --> four. Compared with, not to, for contrasts. "There is a low proportion of non-white people; 95.4% of residents were recorded as white."—are both clauses necessary? "The largest minority group was recorded as Jewish, at 2.8% of the population."—Remove "recorded as"? "Altrincham's 15.5% level of employment"—"rate of unemployment. "early 20th-century"—another hyphen required, as elsewhere in the article. Theatres "formed" or "constructed"? Unsure whether you're referring to buildings or groups of people. MOS proscribes curly quotes. "Precint" misspelling in ref section. Ref 84 specify the author. Mixed title and sentence case for titles in ref section. WP prefers sentence case, but not mandatory (should be consistent, though). Tony (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, the units part of the MOS is "For UK-related, the main units are either metric or imperial (consistently within an article)". That was what the MOS said for quite some time, certainly during this article's development, but there was a brief period recently when it said something else. So miles are perfectly acceptable from a WP point of view, and they are the units used on the local government web site covering Altrincham. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WHO IS STRIKING OUT MY COMMENTS? Tony (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ME SO WE KNOW WHAT STILL NEEDS DOING AS SOME ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED!! (WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?) Nev1 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:TALK and the instructions at WP:FAC and undo any edits made to another editor's posts. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone it. Nev1 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would love this to be an FA, but still have some challenges which I think need to be met before I could support this, namely:
    • There is a one sentence paragraph in the lead. Could this be expanded or amalgamated somehow?
    • In Geography there is nothing about the built environment or urban structure of Altrincham. Subsquently, this section appears a little thin.
    • In Demography could something be found about the social class of Altrincham, and some commentary about Altrincham's demography, historically?
    • Present day is my largest worry. I believe material in this section could, and should, be merged into other sections. Certainly stuff about retail would be suited to Economy, whilst material about dwellings would be well placed in Geography or Demography. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one sentence paragraph in the lead has been expanded; more has been added to the demography section, including the change of social classes over the last 70 years; and the entire Present day section was moved under Economy as this seemed most appropriate (there wasn't really much on dwellings). Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support is the only option I have in that case then! I would like to see a high quality image in the infobox at some point down the line (and I'll try to help with that), but other than that, this seems as FA as any other article I've seen. Well done! -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think all the units are now in the Imperial (metric) form, allowable by the MOS (and overwhelmingly used by the sources). I've been through the references and all now contain the date where given on the source. I can't see any abuses of the dash or the minus sign. Unless I've missed or forgotten something (sing!), it's compliant. I think the style issues have been addressed. Looks clear to go to me. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Ok, since I am going through a similar process now I thought I'd stop by. Have picked up a few uncontroversial (I hope) edits already but had the following thoughts:

  • Lead - "a time when most communities were based around agriculture rather than trade" - I see this comes from the History section but it's a bold statement and a bit ambiguous in this formulation. As it stands it might refer to all "communities" in England or the local area - which is it? Also isn't agriculture part of trade? If other communities were based around agriculture, how did they prosper without trade? or are you suggesting those communities were only concerned with subsistence living? If Altrincham was a trailblazer in the area for a trading economy, this needs to be more forcefully stated and cited.
  • History - "became very desirable...for rich businessmen to live" probably needs a cite. It may be that it is taken from the demographic/census stats later in the article but saying "very desirable" is a loaded statement that implies house prices rising (in today's parlance) or some evidence of folk clamoring to get in on the action.
    •  Done "Rich businessmen" can be a bit relative, so changed so that it refers to the middle classes.
  • History - At least part of the area still seems to have been industrial around the time of WWII. Given its proximity to Manchester and the number of industrial buildings it may have been a target of Luftwaffe bombing raids. Is there anything you can add about bomb sites, damage or anti-aircraft defences? The history section drops off in the 1930s, perhaps something else happened in the last 70-80 years?
  • Geography - "United Utilities obtains the town's drinking water from the Lake District". This sounds interesting and unusual. Why does Altrincham have to get its water from so far away? Does all of Manchester get its water from such a distance or are there out-of-town reservoirs and treatment plants? Is there a deficiency in the water table or some other geological reason that relates? I have not read the full report cited but it would appear this is ripe for expansion.
  • Geography - What is the topography of the area? Is it flat or undulating? Is the town perched on a hill? I see that Bowden used to be downland. How does Altrincham's layout pay homage to its topography. Medieval settlements are rarely formed without reference to the lie of the land.
  • Economy - "In 1801 there were four cotton mills in Altincham, part of its textile industry, although that had vanished by the mid-19th century." Presumably this was due to the nationwide decline of the industry and not a localised failing? If so, it's not clear here. Also, when were the mills actually closed? Were they demolished or did they simply adapt to new industries? Are they now trendy apartments? The use of "vanishing" is dramatic and suggests rapid decline but it is unclear how mass employers such as these disappeared off the map.
    •  Done Given some context.
  • Economy - "stockbroker belt". Is this a term which actually used in the source? As the wiki stockbroker belt suggests this is more readily a London or Home Counties concept. It might be used incorrectly by the local populace however and as a compromise I'd suggest a "dormitory town for wealthy commuters". At the same time "sylvan opulence" is a rather grand phrase and not of universal understanding. Is this a cited term or can we tone it down?
  • Economy - "The town has more recently fallen victim to decline" - what kind of decline? Is crime rife so shoppers are staying away? Are other areas more desirable for shopping? and, if so, why? Also, what part of the town has declined - the whole of it? Presumably you mean the retail districts as that is the general context but it could conceivably the residential areas that have suffered and dragged the town with them. I think it needs clarifying.
    •  Done Rephrased, the resaon was already there (competition from other places) but perhaps wasn't well phrased.
  • Economy - "The average gross weekly income of households...was £653.." How does that compare with the national average? or the average for Greater Manchester? Non-UK readers won't have a point of reference. If Altrincham is bathing in "sylvan opulence" we need to see evidence.
    •  Done Figures given for the North West from statistics.gov.uk, figures for England are sadly unavailable. However, I'm not really comfortable with the term "sylvan opulence" being used in the article.
  • Landmarks and attractions - "beauty spot" is not an international term of art and, as an assessment of aesthetic quality, comes across as subjective without citations. Perhaps lose the loaded introduction and just say that "On the outskirts of town are the 18th century Dunham Massey Hall and its 250 acre deer park..."
    •  Done Disposed of as suggested.

That's all I could see and are really just suggestions/pointers. There may be technical MOS breaches but I'm not the best person to pick those up. Will take another look in a few days and vote then. Best of luck. Dick G (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I think these are very good points. Regarding stockbroker belt specifically - I added this bite of info, and it is quoted word-for-word I'm afraid. I don't see any harm in paraphrasing this however if we need to better the context. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Altrincham&oldid=1138454312"