Talk:Trafford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Trafford is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance within the Greater Manchester WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] Infobox

How do we get an infobox like on Warrington and liverpool? Other districts have them like Oldham (borough). El.Bastardo 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA candidate

I am reviewing this article as a "Good Article" candidate. Axl (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This unwieldy sentence from the lead needs to be broken and re-written: "The borough was formed on April 1, 1974 by the Local Government Act 1972 as a merger of the boroughs of Altrincham and Sale, along with Bowdon and Hale urban districts and part of Bucklow Rural District, all previously in Cheshire, along with the borough of Stretford and the urban district of Urmston, both previously in Lancashire." Axl (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, I've rewritten it and think it's less clumsy now. Nev1 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reference for the formation of the borough on 1st April 1974? Axl (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a reference stating it was formed on 1st April 1974, but I can find one saying 1974. Would it be ok to nick the reference used by Local Government Act 1972 which as the date? (from the lead: HMSO. Local Government Act 1972. 1972 c.70) Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that's better than nothing. Axl (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From the "History" section: "A 100% increase in population in the Trafford area between 1841 and 1861 was a direct result of an influx of commuters due to the construction of the Manchester, South Junction and Altrincham Railway: the number of commuters in Trafford grew." A rise in the number of commuters does not inherently increase the population (number of residents). Axl (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that means that people were moving into Trafford to commute from Trafford into Manchester. Probably ought to be rewritten to make it clearer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That's right, thanks for taking care of it. Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In the "Economy" section, the 2001 census data could be better represented in a table or chart format. Axl (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've converted some of the text into a table, it was a good idea. One of the pictures may have to be disposed of to make room though, which is a shame. Would it be worth doing a table for industry of employment? (The answer is yes, I'm just a bit lazy, I'll probably do it anyway) It would raise the problem of where to stick the tables. Nev1 (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is from "Culture — Places of Interest" (emphasis mine): "Trafford has three of Greater Manchester’s 21 Sites of Special Scientific Interest: Brookheys Covert, a semi-natural wood consisting mainly of ash, birch, and rowan, with a wetland habitat covering 5.8 acres (2.3 ha) in Dunham Massey;[64] Cotteril Clough, an area of woodland that is among the most diverse in Greater Manchester; and Dunham Park, which is an area of 'pasture-woodland or park-woodland' and has been since the Middle Ages, including many oak trees that date back to the 17th century, and covers 192.7 acres (78.0 ha). Also in Trafford are many parks and open spaces; there is about 54.8-square-kilometre (14,000-acre) of greenspace, 51.8% of the total area covered by the borough." The units used for the areas are inconsistent; the first uses "acre" and "ha" while the second uses "square-kilometre" and "acre". The latter areas are more than one unit, hence should be plural. Axl (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Tweaked template. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

From "Culture — Sport" (again, emphasis mine): "Trafford is the home of four major sports clubs: Manchester United F.C., Lancashire County Cricket Club, Manchester Phoenix, and formerly Sale Sharks." The use of present tense at the beginning of the sentence doesn't fit with "formerly" at the end. Axl (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Changed to "is the home of three major clubs ... and formerly Sale Sharks". Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, statistics in the "Religion" section would be better as a table. Axl (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Nev1 (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article passed

I am delighted to pass this as a "Good Article". It is comprehensive, nicely illustrated and well-referenced.

For future improvement, there is some redundancy in the "Economy" section: the details in the table are repeated in the text. Also, some of the other statistics could be put into a table. Axl (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All Grade I listed buildings in the south of the borough?

While most undoubtedly are, I wouldn't have said that All Saints in Urmston was in the south, although it is admittedly on the southern bank of the Ship Canal. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I've rephrased it to be clearer. The transport section is no longer clearly weak, do you think it's worth putting the article forward for FA? Nev1 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Well done for fleshing out the Transport section. I think the article's getting very close, but you know what sticklers the FA reviewers can be. I'd suggest leaving it for a day or two and coming back to it with fresh eyes, hopefully then being able to spot at least some of the things that will come up at FAC, and head them off at the pass. That'll give others a chance to help with a final pre-FAC polish as well. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)