Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trafford

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 promoted 17:19, 7 March 2008.

Trafford

[edit]
Check external links

Self nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it fulfills the FA criteria; I think it's better than a GA, although with few similar articles to compare it to (in fact I haven't come across any above a B-class) this article is attempting to set a standard. Even if reviewers don't feel the article meets the FA criteria, I think that issues raised could be quickly met. Thanks in advance for any input and constructive criticism. Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved criterion 3 issues from ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first image has replaced the second and a fair use rationale has been added, I'm still working on getting the image resized though. Nev1 (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether NFCC#3A applies to multiple occurrences of the same image (although I suspect it does), but you may wish to remove the crest from the infobox to avoid redundancy. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The redundancy is part of the reason I uploaded the second image. I think it should remain in the infobox as it's in the infobox of all the other metropolitan boroughs. It could be removed from the Coat of arms section. Nev1 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly an option, as well. My recommendation was made with the idea of keeping the image next to the related text, but either way works. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been replaced with a smaller one. I'm wondering if either has to be removed? They're not very close together in the article. Just a thought. Nev1 (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A very strict reading of the policy would probably say one needs to go, but I think common sense can prevail here; the images are not being used gratuitously. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've not had time to go through this in detail yet, but a couple of quick comments..
    • The article discusses the rise in population around 1850-1870 but there is no discussion (that I've seen) of the fall since 1971.
    • There seem to be a lot of lists which may be better as prose eg parishes & unparished areas, parliamentary constituencies etc
    • I've not seen the icons used for places of interest before & these may need a key or some other explanation.
    • In education are any parts of the Universities or FE colleges within the area?
      • Trafford College has been included, don't think there are any university facilities. Nev1 (talk)
    • Reference 9 seems to include both "Salford Quays & Trafford Park. Manchester Investment and Development Agency Service Ltd" & "Trafford at GMeP.org" which may be a formatting issue?
      • This is done to make sure there aren't long lists of references cluttering up the text, although it's not strictly speaking necessary here. Nev1 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • A good example of how this is supposed to work is reference 16, the last reference in the geography section. This combines four sources that would other with give an unsightly string: "...4.0% of the borough's population.[16][17][18][19] The civil parishes are...". Nev1 (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If another editor wanted to reuse one of these refs eg to cite the stats for one parish how would they do it?— Rod talk 20:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've spread out the first instance, but I'm leaving the second. An editor could do it same way as if it was a string of references, just pick out what they need. Then all they'd have to do is put <ref></ref> around it an it would work fine. The same formatting is used in other FAs and hasn't caused a problem. In fact it was at the Altrincham FAC that the idea was suggested. Nev1 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to look at the article in more detail asap.— Rod talk 19:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments A few more minor concerns:
    • Sale and Stretford are wikilinked twice in the lead para & there is inconsistency in the linking of these elsewhere.
      • In the lead the links actually lead to urban districts as well as settlements, so it only looks like repetition. Some excessive linking has been removed, but I'm sure there's some still about so could you be more specific? Nev1 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hadn't spotted the urban district bit. In geography, City of Salford is linked twice. In "Localities within" (which I'm not sure is needed) & Electoral wards links to Stretford, Urmston etc which have already been linked above are linked again - but if this section is staying I would probably leave them linked for completeness. Stretford, Sale & Urmston are linked again in coat of arms. Urmston is linked again in places of interest. In education Stretford is linked again. Sale is linked again in religion.— Rod talk 19:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the history section should Toponomy come first?
    • Geography - should the units for ht above sea level have alternative units? This sentence is also not referenced.
    • Most parish councils don't have planning powers (only advisory) are these different?
      • This has been clarified, the source said involvement in. Nev1 (talk)
    • Was the town hall designated grade II in 2007 or renamed?
    • The years of conservative, labour & no overall control of the council are unclear
    • The first sentence of the population change paragraph is a bit convoluted & could be clarified
    • Does ref 55 apply to all the stats in the first para of economy?
    • Do you have a source for Trafford Park being the worlds first planned industrial estate? (when I lived in Slough the same claim was made there)
    • The first sentence of places of interest appears to repeat itself
    • Should it be Dunham Hall or Dunham Massey Hall - both are used (in the same sentence)
    • The sentence re SSSIs could be shortened/simplified
    • "about 21.2 square miles" seems pretty exact to me
    • "Dunham Massey Hall and Park" is linked to Dunham Massey, but "Dunham Massey Hall" is left as a red link & there is mention of its "its stables and carriage house" in two separate places
    • Neolithic & Roman occupation are mentioned in history, but it is only in "places of interest" that bronze age artifacts get a mention
    • Should "Lottery Heritage Fund" link to National Lottery (United Kingdom)?
    • Manchester Storm; in 2006-07 they finished sixth - in what? local, national international?
    • In Education - Trafford appears to have been ranked 3rd & 5th in the same year - might need clarification

Most of these comments are minor and could be fixed fairly easily.— Rod talk 12:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - a lot of work has gone into answering my questions & clarifying some sections, therefore I can now support as I feel it meets the FA criteria.— Rod talk 22:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Agree with Rod. My only qualm is some of the short paragraphs in the "Places of interest" section which could be merged or expanded. Also, check if the section order is consistent with other FAs (I've just got this feeling it's not...). dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Faultless referencing but reading through all the facts and figures is tiring. I would have preferred to see a more narrative, engaging style rather than just a presentation of bald numbers. DrKiernan (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's only so much that can be done with statistics to make them interesting, I think part of the problem is the amount of statistics. Could you highlight particularly where it could be improved? The GA reviewer suggested putting some of the data in the Economy section into a table which would be easier to read and make comparisons but would be a problem to fit in. Any suggestions? Nev1 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • The lead seems on the short side to me. In the third paragraph, you summarize the important items in Trafford. Does it seriously boil down to sports teams, a mall, and one museum?
    • "Trafford has one of the best records for education in Greater Manchester." Either "one of the better" or "the best".
    • I admit this Yankee is confused by the various terms used to describe localities. In the lead, we establish that Trafford is a borough, and it includes towns. In the next paragraph we learn that it also includes urban districts, which I understand to mean government entities rather than physical places. Maybe. Later, you include two lists of localities where you include all of the aforementioned towns and urban districts (plus more), but not the rural district you mention in the lead. --Laser brain (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As pointed out earlier, the list of localities probably isn't necessary. It could be removed since it admittedly doesn't add much to the article. Nev1 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I do like it, and I think it's relevant to helping the reader understand that Trafford is not just a "city" but rather a conglomeration. I would just love the terminology to be a little more clear. --Laser brain (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps part of the problem is that urban and rural districts are no longer in use. They are only mentioned because they are historically relevant. Although Bucklow rural district is not mentioned in the list of localities, the settlements within it that became part of Trafford are. A one sentence explanation about urban and rural districts has been added to the Governance section. Nev1 (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would wikilink the first mention of MPs or write it out. In some places, this means Military Police.
    • "In 1974, on the formation of the new Trafford Metropolitan Borough, Trafford Council was created to administer the newly formed borough." Make more concise. Maybe "In 1974, Trafford Council was created to administer the newly formed Trafford Metropolitan Borough."
    • Tables of data need sources. See how this is done in Saffron for example.
    • There are en dashes in the text that should be em dashes. Please see WP:DASH.
More later. --Laser brain (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: inconsistent dates, some uses of ... at the end of the 2006–07 season ... and others of ... the Conservatives have been in control 1973–1985, 1988–1994 ... decide whether to use final two digits or four digits consistently. Not sure how to fix double punctuation at ... including Altrincham F.C., Flixton F.C., and Trafford F.C.. I'm frustrated at the constant references in UK articles to Grade I, II and III buildings; please define or give some context to those terms for the uninitiated. Is there a wikilink? The article gives us no clue what these terms mean. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Listed building should provide the required information.— Rod talk 21:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The date format should be more consistent now and more wikilinks have been spread throughout the article linking to the listed building page. Nev1 (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the "Electoral wards" table there is a column with "code" at the top. What does the code mean? Could some explantion of what the code is used for be given? ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had a look and can't find what they're used for, an educated guess though would be that they're used for administrative purposes as I've only found the codes used in lists of statistics etc. As such they really don't inform the reader about anything so they have been removed. Nev1 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 23:05, 6 March 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/Trafford&oldid=1138474100"