Talk:Kersal Moor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Kersal Moor has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is supported by WikiProject British and Irish hills, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the hills and mountains of Great Britain and Ireland. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
North West England Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greater Manchester , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Greater Manchester-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography . If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the Greater Manchester WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] Location

Could someone add co-ordinates using Template:coord please? Pit-yacker 21:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Done it now - they don't make it easy Richerman 12:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The images in this article might be improved if you formatted them in this manner, Image:sample.jpg|thumb|right|200px|This is a description of the image (you need to put double square brackets around it). This makes the images easier to place into context. Parrot of Doom 11:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SSSI Status

I believe the moor is a site of special scientific interest, perhaps because of the range of vegitation, does anyone have any information on this? Gomez2002 09:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No, as far as I can ascertain it's only a SBI so far which is a lesser designation than SSSI and non-statutory. There used to be a sign saying so on the moor but it rotted and fell down. It's certainly not listed as an SSSI but then it's not on the SBI list for Manchester either. However the lists don't always seem to be too comprehensive as I've found other sites in the area missing from them. However, various Salford council web pages say it's an SBI. If you want to check, contact the chief ranger Jo Regan [Jo.Regan@salford.gov.uk] Richerman 14:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

see List of Manchester SBI's List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater Manchester and Site of Biological Importance

[edit] Time for GA?

It's about time this article was a GA. What say we do a preliminary review before it's formally submitted? I can see a few areas where a GA reviewer is likely to throw up some objections, but nothing that can't fairly easily be fixed. I'd offer to carry out the GA review myself, but I don't want to be seen to be favouring the GM project in any way, so reluctantly I can't. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's almost there but there are couple of things to tidy up yet. I've been working through the references as time allows but there are still about five that need to be formatted with citation templates. I'm also not sure about the lead as I've just realised there is a bit about the rangers and the Friends of Kersal Moor that isn't covered elsewhere in the article, but I'm not sure where else it could go. I'll give it another look over on Thursday if I get time. Also the article could do with re-rating by someone on the project as I think it would it would be a bit embarrassing to put an article rated as start-class by the project up for GA. Richerman (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
There are a few issues that ought to be tidied up before a GA review, which is why I suggested a GA review preview. But no pressure, whenever you think the article is ready. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, don't forget, WP:LONDON has more GAs than WP:GM, so there's a little pressure. ;) Do we think a formal peer review might help? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it would. Richerman (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)