Talk:Lostock Hall

Tidy Up Process.

As a person who lives in the area of Lostock Hall (and have done since 1979), I have taken liberty to tidy up this page, and update it with new information, including bus services, and schools. Pr3st0n (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Original Content

The original 2 opening paragraphs have now been re-written. When I first visited this page, that was all there was. Since then I've done a major re-write, bit by bit (well more like chunk by chunk) to make this article more interesting and accurate. I will continue to put my heart and soul into this article, as a proud Lostock Hall-er (Pr3st0n (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC))

Importance Scale

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lancashire_and_Cumbria#Proposed_importance_scale, I've increased the importance of this article from 'LOW' to 'MID', as the MID includes villages, and Lostock Hall is a village. Pr3st0n (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_England/Assessment#Priority_scale this article is a suburb, therefore importance level comes under 'MID' Pr3st0n (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC).

Images of Lostock Hall

I have added a Wikipedia Commons link onto this page under refernces as most settlement pages do, and is a good thing to have on a page to get a GA status. However Wikipedia Commons does not have any images relating to Lostock Hall, but you can change that by uploading the images from the Wikipedia article itself and putting them into Wikipedia Commons. I would advise you to do this to get a GA status for this article. I wish you luck. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 93gregsonl2 for doing that for me... I'm off to work shortly, but I will take a look into uplaoding images from the article itself to Wiki-commons. Just out of curiosity, how do you transfer images from a wikipedia article to wiki-commons? (Pr3st0n (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC))

I have not got a clue. I am not an expert in Wikipedia Commons. I never really use it. But I think Nev1 know about it. So your best bet would be to ask him. Sorry about my uselessness 93gregsonl2 (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Figured it out, all images are now on Wikipedia Commons. One step closer to GA application. Pr3st0n (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Article now up for GA nomination... fingers-crossed! Pr3st0n (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have added some images to wikipdia commons. Which will suely boost the article for GA status.

I wish you all the best to achiving GA status for Lostock Hall, the WikiProject really needs it as we only have 3 articles relating to Lancashire at GA staus, while Greater Manchester and Mersyside have loads. I am thinking of puttting my work that I have recently done on Banks, Lancashire up for GA status, but I think I'll improve it a but more first.--93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that mate, I've now started to upload photos directly to Commons first. I've also taken a look at the Blackburn article, as it failed GA status, to see the comparison between that and Lostock Hall article. Naturally the Blackburn one is larger in scale, however, it is a town, so holds more information. Lostock Hall is only a village, and doesn't have much of a past, apart from its origins, which is included in the article. I've covered everything there is to the Lostock Hall one, with good refs, and a wide selection of images too. One thing I noticed different between the Blackburn and Lostock Hall articles is that Lostock Hall now has a chart showing the psychical geography climate averages, Blackburn one doesn't. Hopefully the reviewers will pass Lostock Hall though. Not gonna build my hopes up too much LOL. I'm working on background information on Preston now, doing all the work on my computer first, before transferring it to the main article itself. Again, thanks for your help & advice. (Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

Historical Images

...is in the wrong section. As a rule of thumb, galleries usually go somewhere towards the bottom of the page, and, as a general rule, are discouraged in favour of disparaging them throughout the page. 128.197.244.229 (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I did have these in a sub-chapter of their own at the bottom of the page, but it was considered that incorporating them into the history section would be more feasible. Pr3st0n (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

GA preparation

Please see the Good Article criteria, particularly #2. There are entire sections not cited in this article. That is a criteria for quick fail, but I wanted to get your input regarding your intentions here.

After very quickly scrolling through, the following should be addressed immediately if you wish to keep it nominated for GA:

• Every paragraph should have citations to reliable sources. See When to cite guidelines. The more authoritative sources the better.
• I see several one-sentence paragraphs. Prose should be fleshed out to express complete concepts.
• Prose should accompany or take the place of the table in Landmarks and Population change.
• Prose should come before the visual in Geography.
• Governance is too short a section.
• The images can be removed from the galleries and placed throughout the prose.

There is no shame in rescinding the nomination to work on the article and re-nominate in the future. Since this is your first, you could also ask for a peer review to get some input. I would also suggest looking at other geography-related good articles (under Places). Let me know your thoughts. --Moni3 (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, there is the matter of this material, which is almost identical to this copyrighted material. There is an assertion that it is not a copyright violation, but I would expect this to be clarified to normal Wikipedia standards before even beginning a proper GA review.  Frank  |  talk  17:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok so much to reply to here, I'll do this bit-by-bit.

• Every paragraph should have citations to reliable sources. See When to cite guidelines. The more authoritative sources the better.

Answer: Citations to reliable sources have been used to the best of ability - will look into expanding these ASAP.

• I see several one-sentence paragraphs. Prose should be fleshed out to express complete concepts.

Answer: Most of the one-liners are to-the-point information, the schools in the area wouldn't allow for much detail to be used, although they did ask that an inclusion of their websites be put into the article, so that people could visit those for more details - this request has been abided to.

• Prose should accompany or take the place of the table in Landmarks and Population change.

Answer: I'm certain that a prose was written, I will re-include this.

• Prose should come before the visual in Geography.

Answer: Another user put the prose after the visual, I though it looked in the wrong place - will switch it around.

• Governance is too short a section.

Answer: The governance is very vague, as local government don't wish for so much to be published about current and previous details on the parties who have run the village over the years - although as a former government worker, I am aware of the details, but cannot included them as I would be in breach of the official secrets act, to which I signed.

• The images can be removed from the galleries and placed throughout the prose.

Answer: I had the images scattered about the article, another user merged them into a gallery, I will revert that and put them back into the article.

As no review has started yet there is still time to make these adjustments swiftly, and to the required standards of taste.

As per comment by Frank, I have commented and explained this - but to save argument, I will temporary re-write that entire section, until I am able to provide full ISBN details which also include in the book, a copy of the copyright permission given by the british History website. Pr3st0n (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)