Talk:Bagley & Wright

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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.

Companies Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

'Under Construction' tag removed.

I have removed the 'Under Construction' tag from this article because it is approaching the content that I envisaged when I started. I would appreciate comments on its improvement from more experienced editors. The article was given a 'C' quality rating some time ago. What can I do to improve this? Ian (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To move forwards you may wish to take this through a formal peer review for feedback on grammar, neutrality, formatting. Following that, the next tier is achieving the Wikipedia Good Article standard. --Jza84 | Talk 11:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

I've made some changes to the article, mainly editing for tone. For example, where the subject is unambiguous, it's more approriate to refer to them by their surname. There were also a few instances of the word "we" as in "we know" or "we do not know"; this is rather informal, so I have replaced these with "it is known" or "it is not known" etc. Nev1 (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]