Talk:Carrington Moss

Carrington Moss is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 9, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 11, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
May 22, 2009	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 14, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Carrington Moss was used to dispose of Manchester's night soil, and was a Starfish site in World War II?

Current status: Featured article

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.

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carrington Moss/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewing.Pyrotec (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

This article appears to be at or about the right level, and is suitably referenced, to make GA-status. I will continue to review it in more depth.Pyrotec (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A well referenced, informative article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why does this article exist

This article is proof that Wikipedia's notability rules are an absolute joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAlamo222 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fascinating insight from someone whose sole contributions to wikipedia consist of; creating a user page with the legend "I'm a bid of a fuckwit", putting up one article for deletion and vandalising another article. Richerman (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're supposed to refrain from personal attacks. Brutannica (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that's a joke. Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Careful Nev, your comment could be seen as a threat, and a personal attack! Parrot of Doom 20:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I need advice on how to conduct myself on wikipedia I don't think I'll be coming to the guy who goes about it like this Richerman (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carrington Moss vs Chat Moss

First of all, congratulations on the GA, very well done.

The article currently says: "The success of the project helped persuade Manchester Corporation to purchase 2,583 acres^[1] of nearby Chat Moss in 1895. What Manchester Corporation actually bought was Sir Humphrey de Trafford's Chat Moss Estate. Carrington Moss (Estate), Barton Moss, Worsley Moss, Irlam Moss and all the rest are part of the 6,800-acre area called Chat Moss, at least as I understand it. Thoughts? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only did the WP:GAN, I don't know anything about the area. I did check the in-line citations. That is basically what Ref 28 (Poore, (1902), p.122) confirms, e.g. 2,500 acres of Chat Moss. I don't have ref 29, so I didn't check that one.Pyrotec (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, no criticism of the review at all. It's just that the name "Chat Moss" is used to mean two different areas; the whole mossy area between Eccles–Worsley–River Glaze–Manchester Ship Canal and a smaller area within that which was owned by Sir Humphrey de Trafford, the Chat Moss Estate. Carrington Moss is part of Chat Moss, but not part of Chat Moss Estate. I'm just trying to make sure that this article and the Chat Moss one are consistent. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Carrington Moss Estate was owned by the Earl of Stamford (of Dunham House). The boundary of the purchased estate is indicated on p.17 of the Nicholls book. Nicholls also mentions on p.15 that the Corporation looked at Astley Moss, Worsley Moss, and Barton Moss, before deciding on Carrington. These three may well have been part of the de Trafford estate, which I presume included Chat Moss? The cleansing committee book I scanned on Flickr, on p.5, says that the Corporation purchased the 'Chat Moss Estate' of about (rough calc) 2100 acres. Perhaps they meant 'Chat Moss, a part of the de Trafford estate'?

Perhaps we should try and clarify the boundary of Chat Moss - I can create a map for this if someone gives me a picture or a guide to use. It seemed obvious to me (although just a guess) that Chat and Carrington shared the same geological history, being on opposite sides of the river. One wonders if the land between Carrington Moss and the Mersey had over time been the easiest to cultivate.

I will use the map on p.17 to highlight the estate boundary on the map currently in the article - this should help to clarify at least that aspect. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm worrying about nothing. Carrington Moss is on the other side of the ship canal, so it's not part of Chat Moss at all; the article's wording is just fine, forget I spoke. A map would be useful though, at least it might stop me getting similarly confused in the future. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA

I'm chancing my arm here, but what do you think would be required to get this to FA? I can only think that it needs more Phytology and Zoology. I think everything else is there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're supposed to have more than one article at FAC at once? --Malleus Fatuorum 11:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? What kind of daft rule is that? Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." - I think I'm ok Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence

"Moss, the first use of which is in the 15th century, forms part of the local name for a lowland peat bog, Mosslands." I'm not sure why Mosslands has a capital M as it sounds as if it's a general name for peat bogs, or have I misunderstood the sentence and there is a particular bog called Mosslands? Also there seems to be some missing punctuation. Should it read - Moss, the first use of which is in the 15th century, forms part of the local name for a lowland peat bog, "mosslands". Richerman (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might have to ask Malleus about that, I seem to recall nicking that line from Chat Moss :) Parrot of Doom 17:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no, that was a different bit that I stole! I think the capitalisation is probably in error but others may disagree if the word isn't commonly used outside the NW. Parrot of Doom 17:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is or not it shouldn't be capitalised unless it's an actual place name. Richerman (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not taking the rap for that! What the source actually says though is that moss is the local name for a lowland peat bog, so I'm not sure where this "Mosslands" comes into it anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You tell him Malleus! That probably explains why I couldn't find it in the reference as I did a search on "mossland". Who did the FA review??? Richerman (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely nicked some bits from Chat Moss, they'll be the poor-quality bits no doubt! ;) I don't know where Mosslands came from but mossland is most certainly a common name around the NW. I probably saw it in another source or three and added it in without thinking. Parrot of Doom 18:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, mosslands is used in references 4 and 5. Reference 4 capitalises it as part of an "action plan" so that's probably why I capitalised it also. Hey, my grammar has improved since then! Parrot of Doom 19:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's since Malleus learned you how to talk proper. Richerman (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just a beginner when I wrote Chat Moss, as an exercise, to see what could be said about one of the most featureless parts of Greater Manchester. PoD at least had the glamour of the training grounds for two Premier League teams. All I had to work with was shit dumping. Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good practice for all the shit that's been dumped on you since :) Richerman (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shell?

Is this Royal Dutch Shell Corporation? You're lucky in that bogland that you seem to have got away relatively unscathed. Left you (lucky you) - come to torment us in Erris, North Mayo!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comhar (talk • contribs) 11:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Shell Chemicals, part of Royal Dutch Shell. Malleus Fatuorum 12:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carrington Moss. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bellingram.co.uk/property-review/december-2007-06.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carrington Moss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Carrington Moss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a mixture of selfish (a bronchitic phase of my childhood, 100% (the phase, not the childhood) of which was spent in the early 50s a mile or two downwind of the chemical works so tastefully diminished in the illustration), and historical interest, no mention of atmospheric pollution data, or even anecdotal reference. Was research ever done into it at any stage?Delahays (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference timesreclamation was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[timesreclamation-1] Cite error: The named reference timesreclamation was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]