Jump to content

Talk:Seacroft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeSeacroft was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 28, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

March 2007

[edit]

18,000 isn't actually that big for a council estate. Secretlondon 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only a couple bigger than Seacroft. Don't know where it falls exactly, but would bet that it's in the top 10. Epa101 17:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Often when the page loads up, the map doesn't appear, does anyone know why this is, to my knowledge it only happens on this page. Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed second location grid


Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It load OK for me, could be a browser problem with the cache. Keith D (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

This article does not meet the good article criteria and has too many issues. It has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include but are not limited to:

  • This article needs more inline citations. A lot of information is unreferenced, so we cannot verify it.
    • "Satellite Town Within The City Boundary" has no references
    • Same with "Seacroft Civic Centre"
    • And "Architecture"
    • Along with "David Young Community Academy"
    • The "Gallery" section is unnecessary, and more appropriate for the Wikimedia Commons.

Questions and comments placed on this page will receive responses. Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I think a gallery is a useful place for pages in progress to put pictures which may be incorporated into a more finished page. However there is no use for some of the extremely poor images on this and other Leeds pages. Images should be of sufficient quality in their own right and should actually illustrate something. Dark pictures of a rainy street taken from a moving vehicle are not useful.Chemical Engineer (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that a Seacroft category be created on Commons to group all of the images together and then a commons link added to this page. Then any images not suitable can be removed and still be accessible. The Leeds category on Commons is rather large and could do with some subdividing. Keith D (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think rain sets a suitable scene for Seacroft, perhaps some fork lightening accross the pictures aswell.Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a Seacroft category in Commons as well as a Roundhay one, as both have far more pictures then can be put on the main page alone.Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main Picture

[edit]

Would anyone have any objection if I were to revert the main picture to the previous one, being a horizontal photograph it lessens the size of the info box, improving the layout of the page. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous picture is of poor quality. The present one has been shaped to show The Green.Chemical Engineer (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons File:SeacroftTheGreen.jpg which is horizontal in aspect. Chemical Engineer (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree regading the picture quality, it seems to me somewhat unnecesary to show so much of the green, after all its only grass, personally I prefer the original, however I think it should be put to further litigation before a final decision is made. Perhaps this would intrest User:Whohe! who uploaded the original image. I think a general discussion ought to be had before we settle on an image. I would say that the main photograph should be of the green however. Mtaylor848 (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, a picture of the Green showing less of the Green is available on Wikimedia Commons. I am happy to go with a general consensus, though I was trying to illustrate the large area of grass (which is its characteristic feature) rather than the buildings.Chemical Engineer (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination of Seacroft for GA status

[edit]

There remains some areas of the page to tidy up, inparticularly the layout, with large gaps inbetween text. Some of the sections could also be fleshed out as well. Once this is done, Seacroft should be resubmitted. Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed some unnecessary blank lines. However the layout, (particularly white spaces) varies with your browser and the size of screen. Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the references need addressing first before a second GA nomination as that was the main reason for failure at the previous nomination. The layout of the images can wait until the text has been made ready though I do think that the images are causing particular layout problems as it stands. Keith D (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation

[edit]

It seems to me that this section contains too many comments probably based on experience rather than properly cited, and does not reflect variations across the area. It needs to be properly NPOV for Good Article.Chemical Engineer (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Seacroft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Seacroft/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.
  1. Requires infobox  Done
  2. Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
  3. Switch existing external links in text to references using one of the {{Cite}} templates or move to External links section
  4. Requires copy-edit for WP:MOS
Keith D 16:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 14:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 05:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Seacroft. 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) 22:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seacroft&oldid=1211448409"