Jump to content

Talk:Kersal Moor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleKersal Moor has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 30, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
September 18, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Location

[edit]

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

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

Images

[edit]

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)[reply]

SSSI Status

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Time for GA?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm sure it would. Richerman (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turnpike

[edit]

As part of the other article I'm doing, I discovered that the "Agecroft District of the Pendleton Trust" crosses clean through Kersal Moor, along Moor Lane and Singleton Road - it passes right by the Kersal tollhouse. The road also crosses right through the middle of a large race track. The reference is in the GM turnpikes article if you'd like to use it. Co-ordinates on www.old-maps.co.uk are 381900 x 402000. More details are here, the author has given me his sources if you'd like to use that information as well. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Manchester Moth

[edit]

Started a new page on the Manchester Moth stealing text from here. Hope is OK (Msrasnw (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kersal Moor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

This appears to be about GA-level, so I'll review it in some detail going through it section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lead needs to summarise the article, so the stuff about the management needs moving into a separate section and the rest of the lead needs expanding. Richerman (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • History -
  • I'm not sure that I'm prepared to regard ref 10, a community newletter, as a reliable source (WP:RS). There is an advertisement in it for a book: the first PLACE A History of Kersal - perhaps the quote is lifted from that book, but if so it's not attributed. I suggest that you consider using Glynis Cooper (2005) Salford: A Illustrated History or another reliable source.

It is taken from The first place book but I didn't have access to a copy when I wrote that. I'll get hold of the book and sort that one out Richerman (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done replaced with reference to book Richerman (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no reference for the claim that "Manchester was Mamucium, as it was called by the Romans". Ref 12 does verify that statement, but as it preceeds the claim its not being used as verification.

 Done I've used another reference Richerman (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Sport on the moor -
  • This sentence is almost entirely devoid of dates, unless you care to do the mental arithmatic (or morelikely use a pocket calculator): "John Byrom, the owner of Kersal Cell, was greatly opposed to the racing and wrote a pamphlet against it, but the racing continued for fifteen years when, probably through Dr Byrom's influence, they were stopped in the year of the Jacobite rising. The races recommenced after another fifteen years, and were then held every year until 1846, when they were transferred to the New Barns racecourse". I suggest that you use ref 13, ref 15 which quotes the Victoria County History Vol 4, or Glynis Cooper (2005) to remedy this.

 Done Richerman (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Manchester Old Golf club -
  • It is a verifiable fact that "Manchester Golf club was built on the moor", however this article suggests that the moor extended as far south as Vine Street. The problem is that the 1950 edition of the 2 1/2 inch OS sheet SD 80 Middleton (Lancs.) shows the club house as immediately adjacent to but south of Vine Street and the course south of that, possibly south of the footpath. This is also confirmed by the map, Figure 11, on page 11 of Ref 5, which puts it south of the footpath, south of Vine Street.

I've changed it to "extending as far as the River Irwell" On reflection, it would seem more logical as there is no reason to think the area outside the circle of the racecourse was not part of the moor and, as you say, the golf course was definitely on the moor. Alice Searle's book describes it as a much bigger area than the present moorland, so I'll see if there's anything in there to back up the statement. The problem is that it's obvious from all the evidence I've mentioned that it did extend down to the river, but putting it all together only gets us into the area of synthesis. Richerman (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got delayed with other things. Pyrotec (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Public gatherings and military use -
  • I've no idea whether ref 24, "Cotton times" is a WP:RS, the web does not appear to list any sources for what it claims, but it does have a bibliography page (here: [1]). I've checked Mathias and Luddies are mentioned but Kersal Moor does not appear in the index; so it may not have come from this one.

 Done I've added another reference to back this up

 Done

  • Other pursuits -
  • A trival point: ref 30 & 31 are the same, but they are differently named.

 Done Richerman (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • At two paragraphs long, its quite a good Intoduction to the article; however it should also summarise the main points. To me these are "history", racing, golf, military, butterflies - these are not "fixed views", to some extent you can add your own favourities, but the lead as it currently stands lacks "Summary". Pyrotec (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

A Nice lead. Pyrotec (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A interesting well-referenced article on what is now a compact area.

  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:

The article has been much improved during the course of this review. I'm awarding GA-status. Congratulations on the quality of the article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kersal Moor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kersal Moor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kersal_Moor&oldid=1203255609"