Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sale, Greater Manchester/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 20:16, 16 August 2008 [1].

Sale, Greater Manchester[edit]

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk)
previous FAC


This article has failed three FACs, but that was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. It's been over a year since the last nomination and in that time the article has greatly changed. The scope of the article has broadened to become comprehensive and the prose has improved. I believe that now it satisfies the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for any input. Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment, I'm not convinced the copyrighted image Image:Sale Borough Council arms.jpg meets WP:NFCC#8, could the licence be checked (most but not all CoA are free), and if it is non-free, perhaps a photo of the seat of civic government may be a reasonable substitute. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How's this as a solution: I've replaced that image with this one. It's not ideal, but it's the best I could manage. Nev1 (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, you could always crop the CoA, but images are all free and properly licenced, so I'm happy with that Fasach Nua (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but I don't think the image is of good enough quality for that to be done. I intend to take a better photo, but first I need a better camera, and sadly that won't happen for a couple of weeks. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by epicAdam

Lead:

  • "possibly dating from the Anglo-Saxon period" provide an approximate date, perhaps?
  • "which led to Sale's growth as a commuter town and an influx of middle class residents." second half of that phrase is awkward. If you took out the first piece, it would read "which led to Sale's growth as an influx of middle class residents."
  • This has now been rearranged and reads "...which led to an influx of middle class residents and Sale's growth as a commuter town.". Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is served by three stations along the Manchester Metrolink and there is access to motorways. There is a strong middle class presence in the town." not sure this is needed in the lead
  • The bit about the middle classes has been removed, but per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of the important bit sof the article so I think a rief sentence on transport is warranted. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sale Sharks, a Premiership rugby union club, was founded in Sale but the team is based in Stockport. Sale Harriers Manchester Athletics Club also began in Sale but later moved to Wythenshawe." At least for the lead, you may wish to stick with things that are still in the town.
  • I don't agree, Sale Sharks and Sale Harriers are well associated with the town and deserve a mention. Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • "Sale and Ashton upon Mersey – although not formally merged until 1930 – have a closely related history due to their proximity to each other; Ashton upon Mersey was originally a separate settlement but is now an area of the town of Sale." Not only is this awkwardly phrased, I can't figure out why it's in the "early history" section.
  • The sentence is supposed to explain why Ashton upon Mersey is mentioned in an article about Sale. I think this needs to be done, but do you have any suggestions how to make it work? Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention is already made quite clearly in the lead and is mentioned further down in the text so I'm not sure why this sentence here is even needed. If you think readers might be confused by the mention of Ashton upon Mersey later in the text, a simple appositive or parenthetical can fix that. "A 4th century Roman hoard of 46 coins was discovered in Ashton upon Mersey (a town now part of Sale)" or something to the effect. I don't really think it's necessary, but you can add it for clarity. -epicAdam (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that, done. Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 18th century, it was though that Ashton upon Mersey might be the site of a Roman station next to the River Mersey called Fines Miaimae & Flaviae; however, this was based on the De Situ Britanniae, a manuscript forged by Charles Bertram, and there is no evidence to suggest a station existed there.[4]" Why is this important, then?
  • Local myths and legends are part of a town's heritage, also it's interesting. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "James Massey was fined £52 for supporting the Royalists during the English Civil War." How does this relate to the town itself? Was it drawn into the war?
  • Fair eonugh, I was in two minds aobut this before and I have now removed it. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Modern" may not be the right name for the subheading, since the information here dates back to 1765. In fact, you may want to consider whether the subheadings are really necessary.
  • One definition of modern history is everything since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, as applied here. I'm not convinced the history section is long engouh to need to be subdivided so I may remove them. Nev1 (talk)
  • Indeed. That is a very expansive definition of "modern history"; however, if subsection headers are used, then I would prefer them to be more specific than such vague terms like "old" and "modern". More to the point, I do think the subsection headers should be removed anyway. -epicAdam (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A result of enclosure was that people who had used the land as pasture were left without a source of income and had to look for work elsewhere such as in the city or work houses.[22] Records of poor relief in the town start in 1808, coinciding with a period of poverty in the region.[23] In the early-19th century, the township of Sale has poorhouses where paupers could stay rent free; this reflected the poor state of the local economy.[24]" Poor phrasing here. It doesn't flow together. What is a "period of poverty"?
  • Rephrased, now reads "A result of enclosure was that people who had used the land as pasture were left without a source of income and had to look for work elsewhere such as in the city or work houses.[21] The region experience an economic depression during the early-19th century and record of poor relief in the town start in 1808." Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a "council house"?
  • Explanation added. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Governance

  • "Historically, Sale was a township in the Cheshire parish of Ashton upon Mersey. The township adopted the Local Government Act 1858 in November 1866, and Sale Local Board was formed to govern the town at the beginning of 1867.[37] Under the Local Government Act 1888 Sale became a district of the administrative county of Cheshire.

The Local Government Act 1894 reconstituted the Local Board's area as Sale Urban District. The remainder of the parish of Ashton upon Mersey became an urban district in 1895.[38] In 1930 a county review order merged Ashton upon Mersey into Sale UD[39] [38] In 1935 the new, larger Sale UD was ganted a charter of incorporation and became a municipal borough.[38] The Local Government Act 1972 abolished all municipal boroughs, and Sale became part of the newly created Metropolitan Borough of Trafford in Greater Manchester in 1974.[32] [38]"

  • Yikes. This is confusing to any reader. Really, the important pieces are that the town of Ashton upon Mersey was eventually merged into Sale and that the Local Government Act of 1972 places Sale in the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford in Greater Manchester. Is there any way to tighten this up to reflect that?
It's been trimmed, with many of the technical terms being removed. The information has not been lost, but has been removed to the Municipal Borough of Sale article. Thanks to Lozleader for his help and suggestions. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

  • "he mean temperature is slightly above the UK average," which is? "while the annual rainfall and average hours of sunshine are slightly below the UK average." which is?
  • "49.1 persons per hectare," You may want to convert this into the more familiar person/sq mi and person/km2.
  • Done

Demography

  • "As recorded in the hearth tax returns of 1664, the township of Sale had a population of about 365.[58] Parish registers show that the area experienced a steadily growing population during the 17th century, increasing during the 18th century, influenced by the Industrial Revolution. Although Sale's population greatly increased, it did so less rapidly than that of Altrincham, Bowdon, or Stretford." Umm... 1664: 365 people... 1801: 819. No offense, but I don't believe any of that information is supported by the fact that the town's population grew by only 450 people over 135 years.

Economy

  • "The arable farming would have been enough for the local populace to live on, but the cattle would have been sold to the ruling classes." Is this really necessary? This information has very little relevance to Sale's current economy.
  • In the interests of depth and comprehensiveness I thought a note on the historic economy of Sale might be useful, although this may be going into too much information. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While weaving was common in Sale during the late 17th and early 18th century, the numbers employed had fallen to 4% in 1851." You mean, the percentage of those employed in weaving, right?
  • Yep, I've tweaked the sentence to make this a bit clearer. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Along with the rest of the region, Sale suffered from poverty in the early-19th century;" What does this mean?
  • I'm afraid I don't see the problem with the statement, could you explain the problem? Nev1 (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is partially taken care of with the changes made above about the economic decline, but "suffered from poverty" is such a generalized statement. It tells us nothing about who (surely not everybody was impoverished), what (how is "poverty" defined in the 19th century? Were people starving? Homeless? What was the rate of unemployment?), why (partially described above, but there had to be a reason for the poverty). -epicAdam (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sale has a much higher percentage of adults with a diploma or degree than Greater Manchester as a whole. 26.7% of Sale residents aged 16–74 had an educational qualification such as first degree, higher degree, qualified teacher status, qualified medical doctor, qualified dentist, qualified nurse, midwife, health visitor, etc. compared to 20% nationwide.[63][56]" This information belongs in demographics.
  • Good point, moved. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any other information about where people are employed? I can't believe that a shopping mall and two supermarkets are the main economic engine of an entire town, especially since 84% of the population does not work in retail.

Culture

  • "The band is currently ranked in the 4th Section of the brass band movement." For those unfamiliar with the "brass band movement", this information is meaningless.
  • Why are the Sale professional sports teams not located in Sale? Do they still use "Sale" in their team names even if they've moved?
  • Yes, they still retain 'Sale' in their names [2] [3]. Nev1 (talk) 16:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first school was built in Sale in 1667; it was probably used into the 18th century." There's a lot of this "probably" going on in the article (seven times, actually). Besides the information about ancient peoples at the start of the history section, information should be stated as fact. I mean, the school house either operated until the 19th century or it didn't; not exactly sure why it's a "probably". The same goes for the other instances when "probably" is used to approximate dates.
  • Quite right, unfortunately records are not always as complete as they could be. Probably means there's a good chance the date stated is right, but it may be slightly out. I have tried to limit the use of probably, but some things cannot be changed: there is no more specific information available. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's best, then, to just say "approximately" and provide an explanation for the lack of information, if warranted. If there are only records of school attendance up to the 19th century, then say that. But using words like "probably" just make it sound as if the article is incomplete or that the prose is deficient. -epicAdam (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "OFSTED" Don't use acronyms that haven't been introduced prior. Even though people in the UK may know what this is, most others do not.

Religion

  • This should be a subsection within demographics. The information about the churches themselves should go under landmarks.
  • There is enough information about religion for it to be more than a subsection. Surely the information about the churches is most relevant under the religion section? Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:UKCITY, religion goes under demographics. As for the churches, I would think that the churches would be listed buildings regardless of whether they actually had any congregants. The reason they're highlighted, I imagine, is because they are historical landmarks, not necessarily their function. -epicAdam (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however there was no such priory in the town as the location of all 11 religious houses in Cheshire at the time of the Dissolution of the Monasteries and no religious order owned any land in the township." tighten and provide dates for Henry VIII's reformation

Pictures I have to say that I don't really like some of the pictures used to illustrate the article and the captions need some work.

  • The 1777 map is very difficult to read and the caption doesn't provide any information as to what we're supposed to be looking at.
  • Arms of Sale Town Hall. The caption says "Arms of the former Sale Municipal Borough Council", which already know just by looking at it. The caption could say something like "The Sale Town Hall was used until 1974." or something that provides a bit more information.
  • The Square Shopping Centre is not a great picture. (1) The picture itself could violate copyright because the photo is really just an image of a logo; (2) the image does nothing to illustrate the article; and (3) the caption doesn't provide any more information.
  • Sale Waterside: again, needs a better caption
  • Sale Metrolink station: see above

Sources

  • Ref 37 is broken London Gazette: no. 41196, page 24. Also, the reference needs to be formatted properly (with at least a title of the article).
  • Ref 38 (Youngs book) needs page numbers.
  • I've asked the editor who introduced these two references if they can fix them. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now fixed. The London Gazette doesn't seem to have article titles and the reference is formatted consistently with Template:London Gazette. Nev1 (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced by a new source. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 45 (Bayliss book) needs page numbers.
  • Replaced by new source with page numbers. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link is now fixed. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 81: what makes Zettai.net a reliable source?
  • Ref 108: don't use google maps as a source. In fact, providing location information like that often doesn't need a citation (unless, of course, the location is controversial or contested).
  • Reference removed as it wasn't needed. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are a sports "Management Consultancy and Marketing Agency" and "represents Britain’s most successful track and field stars", it's their job to be reliable. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I think this is a very good article, but is definitely in need of a more extensive peer review first before it can qualify for FA status. Besides what I have listed above, there are just too many instances of awkward phrasing and details of dubious importance to be considered "brilliant" prose. I hope, however, to see this article come up again in the future. Best always, epicAdam (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by User:Dweller

Multiple trivial copy issues, indicative of article needing (another?) third party copyedit, including:

  • "Notable people" section runs risk of POV and/or lack of comprehensiveness, unless you're planning to define "notable" and include everyone that falls into that definition. Do other recent FAs of towns include similar sections?
  • The most recent one was Neilston five months ago, although there are others before that such as Stretford. I agree that 'notable people' sections are a prickly issue, and is often a go to place for vandals. That said, I don't think that in its current state it's POV. The people mentioned satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people), the question is the vadilidity of thei conection with the town. WP:UKCITIES recommends "a note on any notable births in the settlement" and "a note on any notable residents in the settlement". Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Fair enough. Though I'd also query whether it's possible for such a section to fulfil WP:WIAFA on comprehensiveness for a city like London, it's hardly fair to wave that against you if you're following consensus. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • History subsections would be more encyclopedically retitled Ancient and Medieval from Early and Middle Ages
  • Not an issue any more as the section dividers have been removed. Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1260 reference to "Asthon upon Mersey" should really be in quotes, or with a "[sic]" or both
  • I've made this edit, I don't think either quotes of a "[sic]" will be required as the way it was phrased before may have been slightly misleading. Nev1 (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can still be misconstrued as a typo. --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A copy edit by Malleus Fatuorum has moved the sentence "Ashton upon Mersey is first mentioned in 1260" away from the bit about the first mention of Sale so there should be no confusion now. Nev1 (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Synagogue fleetingly referred to, with no reference and no information.
  • A reference has been added, but there appears to be infuriating little information relating to the synagogue online. Nev1 (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could be because of security considerations. I'll see if I can help out at all. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be called Sale & District Hebrew Congregation, an Ashkenazi Orthodox Synagogue, nominally under the affiliation of the Office of the Chief Rabbi, according to ([4]) --Dweller (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit more from the site you provided. Nev1 (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd be astonished if the 1.4% of population that's Muslim (c.1000 people unless my maths is faulty as usual) hasn't developed at least one mosque
  • A good point, but be astonished, the only mosque in Trafford is at Old Trafford. I've added a note about this to the article. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MY mouth is agape. I'm sure that'll be changing in the next year or two! :-) --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A wikilink in the geography section for those wanting more info on the general climate would be useful.
  • I'd be astonished if the mean rainfall for Sale (and to a lesser degree) mean temperature were below the English average, so those stats (unless I'm wrong) are somewhat misleading. Lancashire's woes in the Pro40 competition this year show that the cliches about rain in that part of the world are not baseless!
  • I agree, it certainly sounds counter-intuitive, but the statistics say it's true. Lies, damned lies, and statistics [5] [6]. All the same, as a Lancs fan I'm more than happy to blame the weather for our failings (although I think this year it's spared our blushes with the bat, we've only passed 400 in an innings once so far this season). Nev1 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something, but those still look like UK, rather than English averages. The Atlantic coast of Scotland can do an awful lot of skewing when it comes to rain! --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[slaps forehead] Of course! The stats have been sorted, and Sale now feels like a wetter greyer place. Oh well. Nev1 (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sale Sharks information about whether it is or isn't in Sale is contradictory or confusing at best. "The rugby union side Sale F.C. has been based in Sale since 1861 and at its present Heywood Road ground since 1905." implies it is in Sale, when it's clearly not. Or is it? See what I mean?
Did you miss this one? --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was working my way towards it ;-) Nev1 (talk) 11:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made this edit, I hope it's clearer that it's talking about 2 clubs, one of which is still in the town. Nev1 (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that these are a random collection, not an exhaustive list, and intended to show that it needs third party attention. A great start and really not far off - good luck bringing it up to scratch. --Dweller (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know once the article's had a 3rd party c-e as I'd like to think I can come back and Support. --Dweller (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - References have been reviewed and updated by Doibot. --Meldshal42? 22:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I picked one section at random (Transport), and the prose is choppy and short-and-stop. I see that Malleus has been doing some copyediting, and it's starting to improve, but it needs another full copyedit or two. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sale,_Greater_Manchester/archive4&oldid=1138470716"