Jump to content

Talk:Murrays' Mills: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Nev1 (talk | contribs)
56,354 edits
GA pass
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ArticleHistory
{{GAN|03:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)|status=onhold|subtopic=Art and architecture}}
|action1=GAN
|action1date=00:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
|action1link=Talk:Murrays' Mills/GA review
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=212485314

|dykdate=29 March 2008
|currentstatus=GA
|topic=architecture
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject History|class=|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject History|class=|nested=yes}}
Line 5: Line 15:
{{WPGM|importance=mid|class=B|nested=yes}}
{{WPGM|importance=mid|class=B|nested=yes}}
}}
}}

{{dyktalk|29 March|2008}}


==Potential DYK?==
==Potential DYK?==
Line 53: Line 63:
:Sorry, the missing word was mills. Sorted now: ''with over 60 '''mills''' and 30,000 employees'' [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 17:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry, the missing word was mills. Sorted now: ''with over 60 '''mills''' and 30,000 employees'' [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 17:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


== GA review: On hold ==
==GA pass==
I've passed this article as GA, and archived the review at [[Talk:Murrays' Mills/GA review]] as linked above in article history. Well done. [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] ([[User talk:Gwinva|talk]]) 00:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally very good, and worthy of GA. However, there are some things which need to be done first, and other areas could be improved or worked on. GA is not dependent on ''all'' these being met, but you might like to consider them.
:General [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|GA Criteria]]:
*It is '''well written'''
:readable prose, no major spelling and grammar concerns, generally complies with [[WP:MOS]], but a few minor concerns:
:*Lead: is quite short for article of this size, and does not "summarise the most important points covered in [the] article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." See [[WP:LEAD]].
:*Lead: We don't need the co-ordinates here; distracting and repetitive: they're already in infobox and on page header. Consider moving the grid ref to the infobox also.
:*Lead: "credited as being" a little [[WP:AWW|weaselly]]. Is it or not? Who credits it? Which other building might be?
:*Foundation: not chronological; it would be helpful to know the Murray brothers' background first, and the general market context ''before'' we see them build it.
:*"poses interesting question": 2 problems: [[Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Ironically, amusingly, unfortunately, interestingly, etc|"interesting" is commentary]]; clumsy suspense,or description of research process. Just baldly state issue and possibility. "The 90° turn posed problems for canal boats...which may have been overcome..."
:*Expansion: "doubling" is a red link, and I don't know what this is. Can this be explained briefly?
:*"As the name suggests" is a bit redundant. Look out for this kind of redundancy throughout. [[User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy|User:Tony1]] has a good how-to guide for this.
*It is '''factually accurate''' and '''[[WP:V|verifiable]]'''.
: Inline citations present, good range of reliable sources used; just a few minor citation and bibliographic issues:
:*Place of publication for the bibliography books?
:*You have cited a few facts in the lead (such as owners) but not the more controversial claims, such as "largest in the world", "oldest surviving". If the lead maintains a general style citations are not always required for those facts cited later (such as the owners?), but these claims might be challenged; see: [[WP:LEAD#Citations]].

*It is '''broad in its coverage'''.
:appears comprehensive, covering major points of interest related to mill, maintains [[WP:SS|summary style]]. but:
:*Decline section rather brief. We see a new mill building built, then see them being leased out. Was the machinery sold off? What kind of cotton production? Who owned the mill during this time?
:*Might be helpful to have a quick overview or explanation of cotton trade: a bit of context for all the terms. I still don't really know what this complex did. Also, what was it like to work in? What kind of provisions were there for workers? (Not essential for GA, but worth considering if you want to take it up the quality scale)
*It is '''[[WP:NPOV|neutral]]''';
:{{tick|12}} Neutral tone maintained throughout
*It is '''stable
:{{tick|12}} No edit warring, or content dispute; no major rewriting of content
*'''It is illustrated, ''where possible'', by '''[[Wikipedia:Images|images]]'''
:Tags all checked: all but one from Commons. However:
:* The plan is non-free and tagged "fair-use", but I am not sure it qualifies under [[WP:NONFREE#Policy|fair use]] policy 1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created". Plans can probably be recreated; there may even be some available. I would hesitate to pass this article with such an image in place, without assurance it meets WP's guidelines. It might be worth asking at [[WP:MCQ|Media Copyright Questions]].
:* A bit of image stacking is taking place with them all marching down the right side. Consider the advice at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images|MOS: Images]].
:*It would also be good to see more relationship between the images and text: the canal shot would seem more relevant and less decorative if it illustrated the discussion about the canal access
'''other issues:'''
:*I can see why the plan image is important: it's quite hard to follow the layout and where all things fit in. At some stage in this article's progress, you might want to consider adding in a description section at the beginning, describing the current layout of the complex. "Square section..bordered by such-and such streets, brick-built buildings on X sides... basin was once in centre..." and so forth.
I hope you don't think I'm too harsh; as I said above, not all these points are essential for GA, merely desirable! I think the priorities are to get the lead sorted, the foundation section organised chronologically, the fair use image discussed, and the general image layout improved. Do feel free to discuss any of these with me. And well done on producing such a comprehensive article; I've enjoyed going through it. [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] ([[User talk:Gwinva|talk]]) 04:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

:Ok, I think the '''major''' issues raised are nearly sorted.
**The first section has been reordered chronologically.
**The lead has been greatly expanded which made it easier to rearrange the images in the article and put them closer to the appropriate text. I ''think'' it works.
**The only major thing outstanding is the fair use image. Ok, I think a much simplified and free version can be drawn up, derived from the current plan. If no one else does before me, I'll sort it out in the next couple of days.
**With regards to working conditions and background etc that's something to work on in the future certainly, but at the moment I don't have access to the source I was using. [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 23:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Great. I'll have a closer look at it later, but things look good. [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] ([[User talk:Gwinva|talk]]) 01:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
::::I've been though for another read and copyedit: it's great to have a working conditions section. Seems we're just waiting on that fair use image. I'll keep watching this page. [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] ([[User talk:Gwinva|talk]]) 01:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::[[User talk:Jza84#Murrays' Mills|Steps are being taken]] to aquire a new graphic, in the mean time, while I agree a plan is important, perhaps the current one should be provisionally removed from the article to allow it to make the step up to GA? [[User:Nev1|Nev1]] ([[User talk:Nev1|talk]]) 22:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:13, 15 May 2008

Good articleMurrays' Mills has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 15, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 29, 2008.


Potential DYK?

How about the statement "by 1805, the complex was the largest factory in the world"? Nev1 (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Also worth mentioning oldest surviving urban steam powered mill? Changes look good BTW Pit-yacker (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been nominated complete with picture, but I haven't included the oldest surviving steam powered mill bit. If I - or anyone else - can find a reference before the powers that be decide whether or not the article will feature in DYK? it should probably be added to the nomination. Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next step...

I think the article's in really good shape, well referenced and illustrated. It's not quite finished, there's still a gap before 1950. Despite this I think it might make a good GA candidate. Any thoughts on this? I'd like to have an infobox, perhaps Template:Infobox Historic building, although it might not work so well for multiple buildings. Nev1 (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going for GA sounds good, although, I'm not entirely sure on the standard for buildings - I haven't seen a decent set of guidelines such as the ones for places at WP:UKCITIES. It would be certainly useful to get some feedback on the article. I wonder if the book mentioned in the Further Reading section might fill in some gaps? I might get around to visiting a library at some point. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted to find Cotton Mills in Greater Manchester at city centre library today. However, failed to find it in time available :(. Pit-yacker (talk)
On filling in the gaps - it appears the canal basin was filled in at some point (as part of the restoration I believe it has been restored), I guess somethig about that could be added if we can find out when it happened Pit-yacker (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the history section is pretty much done. I think a new section could be added on the restoration of the mill, and perhaps one on the working conditions although I think that's far less important. Once the lead is reworked a bit I think we're ready to submit this for GA. Nev1 (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On working conditions:

  • The factory, like many of the time, was criticised for its worker's conditions. Murrays Mills did boast windows that employees could open and an entire extra room per floor, for workers' ablutions - a positive job perk in those days!

    - BBC source.
  • [1] Notes that the reason for tunnels was that the owners where worried workers would take more breaks than they wdere entitled to.
  • [2] notes that unlike other firms the Murrays did not provide housing for their staff. However by 1855, they did own 3 terraces in Gas Street, Murray Street and Maria Street.
Do you have anything? Do you think we have enough specifically about the Murrays/Murray Mills to write a section about this? Pit-yacker (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I no longer have access to the Miller and Wild book which did contain more info on working conditions. With the amount of information we have at the moment, I think we should look for a way to integrate it rather than give the conditions a stand alone section. Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images badly laid out

Any idea why? Or how to fix? Pit-yacker (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps fewer images should be used in the text, what's left over could be put in a gallery at the end. No need to get worried about it, there's still more text to add which will space out the images more. Nev1 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Names

In addition to Old Mill previously being known as Union Mill, it seems:

  • New Mill is sometimes known as Jersey Mill.
  • Doubling and Fireproof are sometimes known as Waulk Mill.
  • New Little Mill is sometimes known as Dixon's Mill.

Do you think this should be recorded in the notes in the table. AFAICT from a Google search, it appears (at least with regard to its regeneration (as offices)) "Waulk" appears to be the more common name for Doubling and Fireproof Mills. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should go in; I've come across Jersey Mill and Waulk Mill as alternative names, but not Dixon, although since Dixon was heavily involved in the business, it seems plausible. It'll need to be sourced though. Nev1 (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo???

world with over 60 and 30,000 employees - I assume a word is missing between "60" and "and" ? Pit-yacker (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the missing word was mills. Sorted now: with over 60 mills and 30,000 employees Nev1 (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass

I've passed this article as GA, and archived the review at Talk:Murrays' Mills/GA review as linked above in article history. Well done. Gwinva (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murrays%27_Mills&oldid=212486881"