From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Assessment Report

  1. Article needs to be expanded and have sections added to it which are in accordance with advice given in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements.
  2. More photos need to be added.
  3. References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

 DDStretch  (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A Possible project (or sub-project) for Cheshire[edit]

I think a project or a sub-project (within the UK geography project) dealing with the whole of Cheshire would be a good idea. I have taken as a precedent the project about Cornwall, which any project dealing with Cheshire could hope to aspire to, since this project has constructed Featured Articles about Cornwall-related things. So, I've listed a proposed project concerning Cheshire on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. I think it can easily co-exist with Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography. I would not want to diminish or withdraw from this other project. If you are interested in contributing to this proposed project, please add your name to list at the appropriate place. If you think it might be better placed as a sub-project of the existing UK Geography Project, please say so on that project's talk page, here, and let us discuss it. Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Fairtrade Town[edit]

The town is now Fairtrade Town I was at the presentation of the certificate, and hope to add a source when it becomes available. ARBAY (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation added ARBAY TALKies 17:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A few points on re-assessment[edit]

Sorry for the delay in getting back on the re-assessment. A few points:

  • Some of the redlinked words/phrases will probably never get articles, and I think the readability could be improved by simply removing them.
  • The dates in the references are linked. I know this was how they were explained, but it seems that linking dates in refs is now not seen as a good idea, and when the article gets up to GA or FA nomination stage, it may cause problems. I suggest they are de-linked. You can do this by changing the "|accessdate=2008-10-21" (say) with "|accessdaymonth=21 October|accessyear=2008". Any "|date=" fields can also be changed to "|daymonth=|year=" in a similar way.
  • Think about the length of each section: if a section is small and it doesn't have much prospect of being expanded, then it may be a good idea to collapse a number of sections together to avoid too much short, choppy text.

That should do for now. I hope that helps.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandbach Concert Series[edit]

In the Culture section, I've added a paragraph about the Sandbach Concert Series, but wish to declare a conflict of interest, as (a) a committee member of the Concert Series (b) Webmaster for the Concert Series, and the concert founders. I've added two independent references (1) to Cheshire Life magazine (2) to a news item in a local newspaper. Editors may wish to check for unintended bias. --Iantresman (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've also added a sentence about the 1873 (Sandbach) Sqn Air Cadets, whose website I do too, without financial gain. I have no connection with the other cadets organisations. I also changed the Web addresses for the Sandbach Partnership, to their new web site, whose website I also do. --Iantresman (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
There is some useful historic information on the Sandbach What's On website (A) but most of it needs some good reliable sources. --Iantresman (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Iantresman: Out of curiosity why don’t you restrain yourself from inputting content onto Wikipedia which you be involved with, but rather, as to avoid the impression that you are pushing an agenda ask other non-involved editors to make the contributions for you? You could always provide them with references as well and let them do it so they can approach it with complete impartiality. This is a genuine question and not a direction, its actual curiosity. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 13:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Wiki-Coffee: In this case, I've added information with which I am familiar, and felt was missing. This view seemed to be supported by various sources, so I added it. I can see that some may view this as "pushing" an agenda, but this can be determined by a combination of sources, and how an editor reacts to criticisms about the content added. I think there is an argument that you don't need to be involved with a subject to "push" it (eg if I were to edit the article on my favourite football team), so again, we resort to sources and other editor collaboration. --Iantresman (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)