Jump to content

Talk:Cheadle Hulme/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Initial review

[edit]

The article appears to be at or about the right level for a GA-class article and appears to be adequately referenced. There appear to be a few minor areas where the statements and/or prose need tightening up or clarification; and I'm no sure about the scope. As always, I intend to leave the WP:lead until last:

  • Geography -
  • It would be helpful clarify whether bricks and tiles are still made (the sentence could be read to suggest that they are not now made) and the timeframe of this activity.
  • The source text reads "This [the clay] has long been dug locally for the manufacture of bricks and tiles." (Arrowsmith, 1997). I take this to mean it is still currently being used, but otherwise, I'm unsure myself. Majorly talk 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some clarification of 'National' average (for climate) is needed, is it the average for England, Great Britain, British Isles, etc?
 DonePyrotec (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Economy -
  • Fire fighting, what is written is probably techncial correct, but is it sensible? Cheadle Hulme got it's own fire station in 1960, before that it used Cheadle's and before that buckets of water. So when did they stop using buckets of water?
 DonePyrotec (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two paragraphs about rural countryside and silk weaving are interesting and are probably true, but they are 'floating' in the air with no anchorage in time. Obvious questions are when did silk weaving start and what's its duration? The paragraph seems to imply that it stopped in the early 20th century, but perhaps that was referring to the walking to Macclesfield bit? Also, when did the rural countryside bit about growing its own food and getting water out of wells and ponds become less significant?
  • No year or period was given in the source text for when it started, so unfortunately I cannot answer that, but can only assume it was similar to the rest of England.
  • I hopefully clarified this a bit. Again though, the source texts give little on when things actually happened. I'd guess the building of the railway was the main cause of the area becoming suburban as opposed to remaining rural, but this is simply a guess. There's nothing to work off here, unfortunately. Majorly talk 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK  DonePyrotec (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transport -
  • I'm not convinced that the information provided is historically accurate; it appears to be based in modern namings with a total disregard of historical accuracy. There were numerous stations with Cheadle in their name and it is not clear to me which are in Cheadle Hulme, Cheadle Heath, and/or Cheadle.
 DonePyrotec (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first railway was the Manchester and Birmingham Railway; and it appeared to have opened a Cheadle Station in 1842, which closed in 1845. It was replaced by a new station in 1845, built by the London and North Western Railway (L&NWR), which was initially called Cheadle, but was renamed Cheadle Hume in 1866. There was also a L&NWR station called Cheadle which opened in 1866.
  • This is all discussed in the article, apart from the last parts which I had no sources for. It only mentions the line names, not the companies that opened them. Majorly talk 14:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, then. Your first station appears to be the 1842 M&B Cheadle station that closed in 1845; and your current station appears to be the 1845 L&NWR Cheadle station that was renamed Cheadle Hulme in 1866; and my ref for that is Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC 60251199. OL 11956311M., page 58. Pyrotec (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that I did not finish that sentence. The North Staffordshire railway was the next to be built, followed by the Cheshire Lines Committee lines.Pyrotec (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a Cheadle Railway which opened in July 1878, which is not mentioned, it closed in 1882 and was reincorporated in 1888 as the Cheadle Railway Mineral and Land company.
 DonePyrotec (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "Cheadle Hulme is situated near the A34 bypass, and international transport link Manchester Airport. It forms part of the A5419 and B5095 roads" trying to say?
Well presumably the first part is accurate, i.e. "Cheadle Hulme is situated near the A34 bypass, and international transport link Manchester Airport" - presumably 'and' is correct? So what is "it" (Cheadle Hume is part of the A5419 and B5094)?Pyrotec (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK  DonePyrotec (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buses only get a mention in their post-privatisation form, e.g. Stagecoach. I assume buses existed before that operated by SELNEC and presumably the County services before that?
  • I have mentioned a bus; there is nothing else in my sources about buses. Buses operated by GM Buses/SELNEC etc did operate in the area, but again, I have no sources for this. However, it is fairly trivial to mention what company operated what buses. I think it is fine to simply mention that buses operate in the area, which I have done with sources. Majorly talk 20:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK  DonePyrotec (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention of proper stage coaches and turn pike roads, was Cheadle Hulme on any turn pike road?
OK, I'll give it a  DonePyrotec (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Road lighting is a 'bit floating in the air', e.g. "For a long time there was little roadlighting; each lamp had to be manually lit by a lamplighter each night". Presumably there is electric road lighting and the lamplighters are long unemployed, when?
 Done21:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Eduction
  • Since it was thought necessary to discuss the implications of the Education Act 1870, what were the effects of the Education Act 1944 and subsequent Education Acts on Cheadle Hulme?
I will drop this one -  DonePyrotec (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It affected Cheadle - the first grammar school after the act was built there, according to the article. The school no longer exists though. I don't believe the acts massively affected Cheadle Hulme. Majorly talk 22:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1944 act lead to the creation of Grammar Schools, Technical Schools and Secondary Modern Schools; the next one in the 1960s? was Comprehensive Schools. It did affect it, but you don't go into that level of detail; and I'm not pursuing it anyway.Pyrotec (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only grammar school was Moseley Hall, which was right on the border of Cheadle/Cheadle Hulme. The secondary modern was built in 1936, eight years before the act. It became comprehensive in the 1960s I believe, before massively expanding and changing its name in the 1970s. Majorly talk 19:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead appears to adequately cover the article, but does the article adequately cover the lead (see below)?
  • Scope of article
  • The first and final sentences of the WP:lead mention 'suburban' and state: "Today it is a thriving suburb {of presumably the town of Stockport} with its own.....". Possibly this is true, but it hardly appears to be covered in the body of the article. Its not mentioned in History, other than the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport; possibly it can be deduced from Government; it seems to be ignored or possibly contradicted in Demography, which states: "Cheadle Hulme is part of the Greater Manchester Urban Area, and is within the Manchester Larger Urban Zone and the Manchester Travel to Work Area". The other sections appear to ignore suburb of (?). Is the Town Stockport one of the unmentionable aspects of Cheadle Hulme, or is it just 'sexier' to link it to Manchester?
  • It's not contradicted - it's additionally part of that area, as well as the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport. The town of Stockport is a separate thing from Cheadle Hulme. The Metropolitan area just happens to share its name with Stockport and have its town hall based there. I don't know what you mean when you ask if it's "unmentionable" - it's discussed several times in the article. And like Stockport, Greater Manchester is not the same as Manchester. Greater Manchester covers Manchester and a large area around it, including Cheadle Hulme. C.Hulme is part of the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport and Greater Manchester both at the same time. There's nothing contradicting, or ignoring. It's simply pointless to repeat the same information over and over. Majorly talk 20:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me restate the question here for my benefit. The final paragraph of the lead states that Cheadle Hulme is a suburb. A suburb of what? My copy of the 10th edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines suburb as: "an outlying district of of a city, especially as residential one". I can understand the difference between Manchester and Greater Manchester, and I can also understand that Salford can have suburbs and Manchester and have suburbs, and that they are all in Greater Manchester. By a process of elimination I can deduce that Cheadle Hulme is not a suburb of Bristol, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, etc, but what is it a suburb of?Pyrotec (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the start of that first sentence was changed to: "Today it is thriving with its own schools, open parkland,..." this arguement would disappear; unless the description "thriving" needed to be modified as a result of gready bankers.Pyrotec (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 DonePyrotec (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are told that water was taken from wells and ponds (in Economy); I doubt this still the case, and presumably mains water, sewage and electricity is provided?
  • As far as I can tell there is no mention of when electricity, plumbing etc came to the area in any of my sources - and I have pretty much exhausted all the books on the local area and beyond; they are unfortunately no longer with me, as I had to return them today. As Nev1 says, this kind of thing is trivial for a place like this. Somerset, perhaps you may have a point, but it's unimportant for this article, which in my opinion is highly detailed already. If it was even too trivial to include in a FA, then it has no place here. I don't know what else to say about this. I wouldn't know the first place to look to find this kind of thing out anyway. Majorly talk 20:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right about overdetail, but electricity came in 1924 and electric street lights in the 1950s - 30 seconds on google produced [1]. As you have removed the bit about lamplighters, I can drop electricity.Pyrotec (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a homemade site from the geocities era. I wouldn't use it as a reliable reference. I am of course aware of that site, being first to come up in a google search. Majorly talk 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1920s is the right period for electrification of rural centres of populations such as this. In the case of isolated farms, some still don't have it, or they got it in the 1950s/1960s at their expense. But I'm not pursing this one.Pyrotec (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your wells and ponds sentence has citations, but it is the only mention of water. If you could rephrase, tone it down, or remove it entirely I don't need to ask about mains water. P.S. In the Victorian era the City of Birmingham built, under Act of Parliament, reserviors at Elan Valley and piped the water to Birmingham. Any authority within 30 miles of the pipe line could demand water. City of Manchester did the same, so the Cheadle area migh have been using Manchester water for tha last 100 years (but I have no citations for Manchester).Pyrotec (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I would disagree personally. I think it adds nicely to the discussion of life for people around that time. Majorly talk 19:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This looks like another WP:GM, WP:FAC, so I'm going to pass it, warts and all, i.e no more free consultancy.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article. I'm awarding GA.Pyrotec (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed review (and apologies for trying to rush you along before - I admit that patience is one of my weaknesses...) Majorly talk 19:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheadle_Hulme/GA1&oldid=288325895"