Talk:Sale, Greater Manchester/Archive 2

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

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

The article is well on its way to Good Article status, but needs a few fixes and expansion in some sections.

The lead section needs expanding and should adequately summarize the content of the article; see WP:LEAD for guidelines here.

I have rearranged the sections. The new 'geography and climate' section needs expanding and a 'demographics' sections should be added to the article, including 2001 census information. An economy section needs to also be added giving info on local industries.

A table showing the average rainfall and temperature could be added to the geography & climate section. A template for this table can be found at Herne Bay, Kent#Geography and climate. You can find data for Sale's nearest weather station here.

The politics section could be expanded. For example, which party controls Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council.

A 'cultural venues' subsection could be added to the culture section giving info on local theatres, :museums, cinemas etc. A 'local media' subsection could also be added giving info on local papers and radio stations.

Each 'fair use' image needs a fair use rationale.

'Trivia' sections are generally discouraged in articles. Try to incorporate the info elsewhere in the article.

The prose in the education section needs expanding. Include some more info on individual schools.

The external links section is slightly too long. Remove links to Sale Rugby Club for example which aleady has a link to its own wikipedia article. It might help to review WP:EL.

More citations are needed in the article. Ideally, every paragraph should have at least one citation. Each notable resident needs a citation.

Hope these suggestions help improve the article. It might also help to review the good article criteria. Feel free to renominate once these have been fixed. Epbr123 10:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


"A table showing the average rainfall and temperature could be added to the geography & climate section."
I find that suggestion astonishing. Sale is with a short walk of Altrincham, Stretford ... and a great many other areas within Trafford. What is the point of each of those articles repeating the same local climate data? ---- Eric 03:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It's better than none those articles including local climate data. Epbr123 15:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Similarly this comment; "The politics section could be expanded. For example, which party controls Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council."
That information ought to be available by following the internal link to Trafford Council, not repeated in every article about an area within Trafford.
---- Eric 03:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
People shouldn't have to search through other articles to find info relevant to Sale. Epbr123 15:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. But that isn't information about Sale. It's information about the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford. ---- Eric 20:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Should the names of the MPs be removed because the info is not about Sale, it is about the constituencies of Altrincham & Sale West and Wythenshawe and Sale East? Epbr123 20:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The names of the MPs occurs in only a couple of articles. The politics of Trafford Metropolitan Bourough Council, just like the climeate of Sale, would be repeated in a great many articles, not just one or two. Big difference. ---- Eric 21:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, to answer your question, yes, I would remove the names of the MPs. Repeating the same information in many articles inevitable leads to inconsistencies in that information. There are hyperlinks to the constituencies, they should be used, not information copied from them. ---- Eric 21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Most city Featured Articles include the names of MPs and who runs the Council. The WikiProject Cities guidelines states that info on climate should be included. However, I think you are right. But there needs to be an article on the climate of Greater Manchester which can be linked to. Epbr123 21:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sale isn't a City, it's a small town in the southern part of a city.
Your suggestion about an article on the climate of Greater Manchester is a good one. ---- Eric 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But Sale is a pretty small area within Greater Manchester, it doesn';t

WikiProject Cities includes towns & villages. Epbr123 22:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It may well do, but that's not the point. Towns in Manchester, like Sale, have the same climate as every other town in Manchester. What on earth would be the point in repeating the same Greater Manchester climate data in every article about a town/village/area in Greater Manchester? ---- Eric 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The article has to mention the climate. If there isn't an article on the climate of Greater Manchester, the Greater Manchester climate data will have to be included in this article. Epbr123 01:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If the climate of Greater Manchester isn't already covered in the Greater Manchester article then it should be added to the Greater Manchester article, not the Sale article. ---- Eric 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Its this article thats trying to be GA, not Greater Manchester. Epbr123 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In fact both have aspirations to be GA (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester), but that's not the point. Information ought to be in the right place, not placed just so that one article can get GA status. Surely the integrity of the encyclopedia is more important than whether or not one article gets GA status?
Taking your argument to its logical conclusion we only need one article about Greater Manchester, this Sale article. ---- Eric 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who is able to add climate data to this article is equally able to add it to the place where it ought to be, the Greater Manchester article, and able to reference it from here. The alternative is that we start seeing the identical climate data in articles about Dunham Massey, Bowdon, Timperley, Partington, Old Trafford ... ---- Eric 19:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you add the climate data to the Greater Manchester article? Epbr123 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Why didn't the person who initially added it to this article not add it to the Greater Manchester article? Why does anyone now arguing for that data to be added to this article not instead add it to the Greater Manchester article? I am not a meterologist and I'm certain there must be many others better qualified to write something about the climate of Greater Manchester than I am. But if nobody else is prepared to step up to the plate then I will, rather than see what I think is the farce of identical climate data being repeated in every article about an area in Greater Manchester. ---- Eric 22:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Notable residents section

I was unable to find references for the following people in the notables residents section:

If anyone can find sources for these people, feel free to add them back to the article complete with citation. Nev1 16:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

2nd GA Review

Pass! A great improvement.

Here are some further suggestions for improvement:

  • I don't think each of the landmarks and attractions should have there own subheading. The Waterside Arts Centre paragraph is too short to be a section of its own.
  • The redlinks in the school and church tables should be removed. Very few primary schools and churches are notable enough to have their own articles.
  • The etymology section should be combined with early history.

Epbr123 20:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


I can only think that you must have been looking at a different article from the one that I was looking at earlier this evening :-)
---- Eric 03:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The only problem with the article is the layout, which I have asked thm to fix. Epbr123 15:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent history

So far as I can see this section contains hardly any recent history at all, the most recent event being repairs to the town hall in 1952. ---- Eric 03:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Delisted GA

The article no longer fulfills the good article criteria. The lead and geography section needs expanding. Epbr123 15:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Watling Street

The A56 was a Roman road called Watling Street but it wasn't the same as the more famous Watling Street.Epbr123 18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no Roman Road called Watling Street; Watling Street is an Anglo Saxon name. Who has ever (correctly) called the A56 Watling Street? ---- Eric 19:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Its Anglo Saxon name was Wæcelinga Stræt. Watling Street is what the road is called now. See here. Epbr123 19:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I quite agree that map shows the location of what the Anglo Saxons called Watlington Street. But it goes nowhere near Sale. The A56 follows the route of a Roman road that connected Chester and Manchester, nothing to do with Watling Street. ---- Eric 20:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The Roman road that connected Chester and Manchester is called Watling Street. See here pg 32. Epbr123 20:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
That article simply demonstates the unreliability of mediaeval writers. I doubt that there would be anyone today who does not believe that the course of Watling Street runs from Dover to Wroxeter, many miles from Sale. [1]. If someone wants to say that the A56 has been locally known as Watling Street that's one thing. But it ought not to be internally linked to the currently accepted route of Watling Street in that case, and it ought to be clearly disambiguated from it. ---- Eric 21:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree it should be disambiguated but I'm just pointing out that more than one Roman road was officially called Watling Street. Epbr123 21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd dispute your use of the word "officially", but I wouldn't fight you over it :-). I just don't see any point in making a potentially misleading connection between the A56 and and what most everybody would think of as Watling Street myself. There's no doubt that the A56 through Sale pretty much follows the route of a Roman road linking Chester and Manchester, which is the important thing to say. But there's also no doubt the the Romans didn't call the A56 Watling Street, and nor I think would many others today. ---- Eric 21:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to get even the basic facts right?

How many wards are there in Sale exactly? The nine that the article claims, or the five that Trafford thinks that there are? [2] ---- Eric 23:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As a supplementary question, how can an article get WP:GA status when it contains so many errors? Is that just a quick check on the English and a count of the references, but not actually checking any of them? ---- Eric 00:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What errors are there? Epbr123 00:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Many have now been corrected. But most recently the discrepancy in the number of wards within Sale. Was it nine or was it five? The text said one thing but the reference given said something else. ---- Eric 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It depends how the Sale boundary is defined. The article stated that four of the wards contained areas outside of Sale. Epbr123 00:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sale is an area within the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford. There's no negotiation about where Sale's boundaries might be. ---- Eric 00:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Electoral boundaries don't always match traditional boundaries. Epbr123 00:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing electoral boundaries with historical boundaries, just like the article did until it was corrected. Wards are not historical/traditional boundaries.

The fact remains though that the wards within Sale are well defined, and there are five, not nine.

Neither the article or myself confused electoral boundaries with historical boundaries. The article merely stated that some of the historical areas of Sale were outside of Sale's five electoral wards. Epbr123 01:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but it certainly isn't mine. ---- Eric 01:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The article tried to give an estimate of the poplation of the traditional area of Sale, stating "Totals for Broadheath, Bucklow St Martin's, Timperley, and Village are estimates as these electoral wards only contain part of the Sale population." Epbr123 01:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no "traditonal area of Sale". Or if there was, then let's see the evidence for it in the article. ---- Eric 01:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Where's the evidence that Sale's boundaries are defined by electoral wards? Epbr123 08:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has suggested that Sale's boundaries are defined by electoral wards. Sale's boundaries are defined by the Local Government Act 1972. ---- Eric 01:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Whilst some superfluous – and repeated – information has been removed from the article some relevant information has been lost, the swathe of perfunctory edits to the article has not benefited it.

For instance, the Harrying of the North was an important event in the history of the North of England, explaining Sale’s stunted growth after the Norman conquest of Britain. This surely warrants its inclusion in the early history section? Also, in the transport section, the material about the Bridgewater Canal was removed. I would like to know the justification behind this as the canal cannot easily be dismissed from Sale. Not to mention the sports section and the Sale Sharks information. The point of the article on Sale is to bring together all relevant information on the town, the events within it and the people. Whilst the prose on Sale Sharks may have been slightly excessive it was relevant.

Constructive criticism is always welcome, but I believe that some of the removed material should be reinstated, however I can assure you that I will not do this unless others agree. Nev1 16:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The "harrying of the north" did not affect Sale, as Sale is south of the River Mersey. If anyone has any evidence that the "harrying of the north" did affect Sale, then of course that information ought to be included in the article.
So far as Sale Sharks is concerned, its only connection with Sale is that it is an offshoot of Sale rugby club, which is mentioned in tbe article and a link provided.
The Bridgewater Canal information was removed because it can hardly be called an important transport route through 21st century Sale. Fine to include some local information relevant to its historical importance to Sale.
Obviously I agree with your general point that an article about Sale ought to bring together information about Sale. Perhaps where we disagree is that I don't think that means that everything about, let's say Trafford Council, has to be repeated in the Sale article and every other article about an area within Trafford. For instance, including climate data for Sale was surely absurd wasn't it? ---- Eric 00:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, apart from that now rather strange looking "Notable residents" section, I think the article looks pretty good. Is that prose based style for notable residents some new standard/guideline? ---- Eric 00:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
My point is that Cheshire was effected by the Harrying of the North, and by association so was Sale. There is no explicit documentation of Sale's involvement because records were sparodic at best and probably lost if there were any to begin with. Admittedly, the only evidence comes from the lack of growth of Sale after the Norman Conquest.
I've added the logo of Sale FC, though the logo of Sale Sharks would be preferable.
Also, I've reinstated some of the stuff from the transport section and moved it to the recent history section as it seemed more appropriate. Any more ideas how the article could be improved? Nev1 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
My point is that if Cheshire was affected by the harrying of the north then that information ought to be in tbe Cheshire article, not the Sale article. Sale didn't even exist, or at least there's no evidence that it did exist, at the time of the harrying of the north in 1069.
I really do think that our only point of disagreement is about the scope of the information in this article. I do generally think that it's a good article, and I'd like to see it become a model for other articles about other areas in Trafford when it gets its WP:GA status back again. And some important points have come out of the discussion, like providing a link to climate data for Greater Manchester. ---- Eric 22:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

  • The lead should mention the population figure and any characteristics commonly associated with Sale.
  • The number of subsections should be minimised. The Landmarks and attractions sections does not need to be subdivided.
  • The History section does not need to be subdivided in early and recent history as the sections are relatively short. 'Recent' is also a subjective term.
  • The History section should be moved above the Geography and administration section to be consistent with other city articles.
  • The Geography and administration section should mention the geography. Ideally, geography and administration should be separate sections.
  • Info should be included on the town's industries, museums, galleries, theatres, cinemas, parks and festivals.
  • Lists are discouraged in city articles. The school & church lists would be better in separate articles.
  • Census data on the religious makeup of the town would be useful in the Religion section.
  • Census data on the age distribution would be useful in the Demographics section.
  • Census data on the industry of employment of residents would be useful in the Economy section.

Epbr123 16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in altering the layout as it's consistent with other articles within the Greater Manchester Wikiproject. Nev1 18:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That's fine then. Its not too important. Epbr123 18:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
"The lead should mention the population figure". Population information is already in the infobox. Ought it really to be repeated in the lead? ---- Eric 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The lead is meant to summarize the article. It doesn't matter if its info is also stated elsewhere. Epbr123 22:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Even when that same information is stated about 2 inches to the right of the lead, in a standard place where people might be expected to look for it? Summarising isn't synonymous with repeating. ---- Eric 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The info box also shows that Sale is within the Metropolitan Borough of Trafford, in Greater Manchester, England. Should that be removed from the lead? Epbr123 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion yes, or remove it from the infobox. Why keep repeating the same information? The infobox is already a summary of Sale, the lead ought to expand on that, not simply duplicate it. ---- Eric 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You really hate repetition, don't you? When a reader just wants some basic info about an article, it is expected that they will read the lead, rather than the info box. Epbr123 23:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Who expects that? Why have infoboxes if they're going to be ignored? I simply think that the lead ought to summarise the article, not repeat some arbitrary details some may think are important, details already given in the infobox.
It's not I hate repetition, it's just that I've never seen the point of it. It leads to inconsistency. ---- Eric 23:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Population is more than an arbitrary detail. The size of a town is one of its most defining characteristics. Epbr123 00:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
And that's why the population is quite correctly in the infobox. It's the repetition of that information in the lead that's arbitrary. ---- Eric 00:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The lead takes precedent over the info box. It should be removed from the info box if anything, although it serves a useful purpose in both places. Epbr123 00:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We'll probably have to agree to disagree. ---- Eric 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As a guideline for much of the article, I refered to the structure of the Shaw and Crompton article, a fine example of a GA article. Even articles such as that one kept some lists as the town isn't really big enough to warrant another article for the lists alone, and I believe that this applies to Sale. Nev1 15:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The lists in the Shaw and Crompton article may be a problem if it goes for FA status. Also, a list of schools and churches may have been more acceptable in that article as the lists were shorter than in the Sale article. Although, its probably worth leaving the lists in until a GA or FA reviewer asks for their removal. Also note that the Shaw and Crompton article had no one-sentence subsections. The short subsections in the Sale article will either need to be expanded or removed. Epbr123 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
More info about the history of Sale can be found here. Epbr123 17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This issue with lists is puzzling me, and if anyone can provide one I'd appreciate an explanation. Is it being suggested that there ought to be a separate article on, for instance, Sale's Schools and another on Sale's churches?
What's the corresponding recommendation for the Notable residents section, which looks like a dog's dinner at present having being "delisted"? ---- Eric 20:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The schools should actually go into List of schools in the North West of England. What don't you like about the current Notable residents section? Epbr123 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Notable residents section looks like a number of unrelated sentences composed into a few arbitrary paragraphs. But if you think it looks OK, then perhaps it's just me.

I have to say though that I do agree with getting these lists of schools/churches out of individual articles and somewhere central. I haven't checked, but I'd bet that several of the schools listed in this article aren't actually in Sale at all. ---- Eric 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look closer, you'll notice that the Notable residents paragraphs aren't arranged arbitrarily. I think people need to start concentrating on what should be added to the article, rather than taken out. Epbr123 10:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the website Epbr123 suggested, it uses the Hainsworth and Swain books as sources which are also cited in the wikipedia article, so it should be reliable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nev1 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I've had a stab a rewriting the notable residents section, it's not perfect but I think it's better and certainly seems slightly less non-sequitor. Nev1 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"The schools should actually go into List of schools in the North West of England. What don't you like about the current Notable residents section? Epbr123 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)"
OK, all of Trafford's schools, including Sale's, are now in the List of schools in the North West of England. How do you recommend sensibly linking to that list so as to be able to remove the current list of schools from this article? An example would be good.
Nev1 has already very ably addressed what I didn't like about the Notable residents section. ---- Eric 22:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this Herne Bay, Kent article that you apparently gave GA status to, to be taken as a template for how to avoid lists of schools in your opinion? Difficult to do that kind of thing with a large LEA with 30 or more primary schools. ---- Eric 00:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Add
See also: List of schools in the North West of England § Trafford
to the education section. The schools should be talked about in general and only the most notable ones mentioned. I wrote Herne Bay, Kent and it is soon to be a Featured Article. Epbr123 00:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That didn't really answer my question. ---- Eric 01:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Shall I write it for you? Epbr123 01:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you've completely missed the point. ---- Eric 01:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It seems I have. Epbr123 01:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an easy question. All the schools in the north west are now in the List of schools in the North West of England, as you asked for. Now what? ---- Eric 01:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I've told you! Epbr123 01:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. No answer once again. ---- Eric 03:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

    • This must be a wind-up. Epbr123 11:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeating information

I think the current Sale Water Park subsection is a good example of where summarising (repeating) information is done well. The facts summarised aren't dynamic and give enough information to allow a reader to decide whether the link might be an interesting one to follow or not. ---- Eric 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is good. I hope the same can be done with the lead soon. Epbr123 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead

What is Sale? It's an area within Trafford isn't it? Is it still a town? How are towns defined within conurbations like Greater Manchester? ---- Eric 05:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge it's a town. Why do you ask? Nev1 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I ask because it seems to me that there's an inherent inconsistency between Sale as a town and Sale as a ward within Trafford, in the population data for instance. Is that the population of the town of Sale or the ward of Sale? Sale was a town, as was neighbouring Stretford. But are they still towns in 2007? Doesn't "town" imply some kind of local autonomy? ---- Eric 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say it's still a town. A lot of places in Greater London are still called towns. There isn't actually an official definition of a town; I think it depends on what the locals call it. All towns are also electoral wards within a district. Epbr123 22:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Towns surely had some form of autonomous government that places like Sale don't have today. If it only depended on what the locals called it then Yorkshire would be a republic :). ---- Eric 22:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Not many towns have there own form of government. No towns near me do. Epbr123 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Quite. So perhaps they were towns but are no longer towns. ---- Eric 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What should they be called then? Epbr123 22:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

They should be called what they are. Hence my question. ---- Eric 22:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • So all towns and villages in Britain should be renamed areas? Epbr123 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asking a question. Is that your answer to my question? Villages often have parish councils and towns have town councils. Sale has had neither for some time so far as I'm aware. ---- Eric 22:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Not all non-conurbation towns and villages have councils. Epbr123 22:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that they all did. My question was specifically about Sale. ---- Eric 23:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Why do you think Sale isn't a town? Epbr123 23:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that I didn't think Sale was a town. My question was about the definition of a town, particularly in conurbations like Manchester. ---- Eric 23:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I answered that question in my first comment, but you didn't seem happy with the answer. Epbr123 23:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the ambiguity. For instance, is the population given for Sale the town's population or the ward's population? ---- Eric 23:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be the wards' population. There shouldn't be any difference between the two as the ward boundaries would be set around the town. Epbr123 00:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
For instance, wouldn't it be more correct to say something like Sale was formerly a town and is now a ward within Trafford? I'm just asking the question because what's currently being said doesn't seem consistent to me. ---- Eric 23:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Sale is actually about six wards, not one. Epbr123 00:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
[3] Epbr123 01:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the Sale area has a number of wards, none of them called Sale. What's your point? ---- Eric 01:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You're the one who keeps going on about Sale being a ward! Epbr123 01:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you try reading what has been said, not what you think has been said. I'm rather disappointed that someone who has the apparent ability to grant WP:GA status has acted so aggressively in the face of perfectly reasonable criticisms and questions.

I'm afraid that it makes me doubt whether there's any point in continuing to contribute in the face of such intransigence. ---- Eric 01:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm getting confused. You said, "wouldn't it be more correct to say something like Sale was formerly a town and is now a ward within Trafford?". When have I been aggressive? Why would I ,mind you criticising? I didn't write the article. Epbr123 01:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write the article either, but that's not the point. You have quite quite correctly quoted a question that I asked, one that has has been studiously avoided.

  • Here's the answer again: no. Epbr123 02:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your answer may be same but the question doesn't go away. As I said, I'm rather disappointed that someone with the the apparent ability to grant GA status to articles doesn't also also have the ability to recognise when he or she is wrong.

I'll take no further part in this Sale article. ---- Eric 02:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre! Epbr123 02:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Bizarre from your pov perhaps, but not mine. You have demonstrated yourself to be unable to answer even the simplest of questions — just look at the unanswered questions in this topic — so I have lost interest in responding to your offerings. ---- Eric 02:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This is weird. Which questions haven't I answered? Epbr123 11:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as you aren't leaving after all, could you please clearly and POLITELY ask me the question you think I keep avoiding? Epbr123 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia article on towns a town can refer to either a settlement which has traditionally been called a town or to one which has its own town council. One of the constituent parts of a town council is a Mayor which Sale has, but I'll have to do some more research one the subject. I think this would slot well into the geography and administration section. The discrepencies in Sale's population according to the 2001 census and the current ward data results from Traffords rearrangement of ward boundaries in 2003. Nev1 10:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Turns out I was wrong about Sale having a mayor or council, Sale is run by Trafford council as part of a unitary authority. I think though that Sale still counts as a town as it has been historically a town. Also if what were previously towns lost their status when they became part of Trafford council places such as Altrincham, Stretford and Urmston would no longer be towns. Nev1 12:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Demographics section

This section seems to be cited from the Queenborough and Halfway ward. In Kent. Whilst this section does require expansion, it would help to do it with the correct information. The wards in Sale are Ashton upon Mersey, Brooklands, Priory, Sale Moor and St. Mary's. However, there is some difficulty in bringing the figures from these wards together to form a coherent section. Did I mention Sale is not in Kent? Nev1 13:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have confused Sale, Greater Manchester for Swale, Kent. Nev1 13:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I was using the Queenborough and Halfway ward as a template and forgot to change the reference.

Where did the past population figures come from? Epbr123 14:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I can't remember, but I did a quick tally of the numbers from the ward profiles and they match your numbers. As such I think that they should be cited as the sources rather than 'neighbourhood statistics' which only leads to the search page. Nev1 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've provided links to each ward's data as you suggested. I have removed the past population figures as they are unsourced and appear to be false. Epbr123 14:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am curious as to why the percentages of the different kinds of households do not add up to 100%.--Scrawlspacer 07:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Economy

"Sale has a much higher percentage of adults with a diploma or degree compared to Greater Manchester as a whole. 27% of Sale residents aged 16-74 had a Bachelor's degree or higher, compared to 20% nationwide."

Is that really true? The census counts level 4/5 qualifications, defined as First Degree, Higher Degree, NVQ levels 4 and 5; HNC; HND; Qualified Teacher Status; Qualified Medical Doctor; Qualified Dentist; Qualified Nurse; Midwife; or Health Visitor. It doesn't count bachelor's degree or higher. ---- Eric 04:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • First Degrees are Bachelor's degrees. Those other qualifications rank level or higher than a Bachelor's degree. Epbr123 09:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I know what a bachelor's degree is, and I also know what an HNC is. It most certainly does not rank level or higher than a first degree. Neither do NVQs, at whatever level. ---- Eric 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

    • That just displays your total ignorance. I don't wish to converse with you again. Epbr123 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Whatever. Epbr123 15:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


The statement I quoted at the top of this section is wrong. It is not true that 27% of Sale residents have a Bachelor's degree or higher. Is "whatever" an appropriate way to address that? Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia article? ---- Eric 16:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The figure quoted comes from the neighbourhood statistics site, although it is the result of 5 wards worth of data. As correctly stated earlier "The census counts level 4/5 qualifications, defined as First Degree, Higher Degree, NVQ levels 4 and 5; HNC; HND; Qualified Teacher Status; Qualified Medical Doctor; Qualified Dentist; Qualified Nurse; Midwife; or Health Visitor" not bachelor's degrees. The figures are correct, but the text explaining them is incorrect and as such will be changed. Nev1 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Those qualifications do rank level or higher than a Bachelor's degree. Epbr123 18:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
All the same, let's try to be clear on the point. Nev1 18:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

*Those qualifications do rank level or higher than a Bachelor's degree. Epbr123 18:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

HNCs, for instance, most certainly do not rank level or higher than a first degree. You might have a case arguing that an HND does, but not an HNC. But as Nev1 suggested, let's try to keep to the point. Which is to get this article back up to GA status. Dubious statements like "27% of residents have a Bachelor's degree or higher" really aren't helpful. ---- Eric 23:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I am actually aware of how to get articles to GA status. You're very lucky that I've taken an interest in this article. Epbr123 00:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


**That just displays your total ignorance. I don't wish to converse with you again. Epbr123 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If I'm ignorant, then surely I ought to be taught? If I'm right, then surely I ought not to be abused? I fail to see where "lucky" comes into it. ---- Eric 00:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Can you please concentrate on improving articles rather than starting disruptive squabbles? Epbr123 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


I am merely trying to correct your "facts". ---- Eric 00:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • For someone who totally disrespects my work, you do seem to copy it quite alot. Epbr123 00:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


I am interested in two things. Getting the facts right and establishing some kind of standard for articles in the Trafford area. I'm not interested in you at all. So why not take your own advice?

Can you please concentrate on improving articles rather than starting disruptive squabbles? Epbr123 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC) ---- Eric 00:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • When have I ever started an argument with you?? I have made 13 edits to articles within the past hour, whereas all you've done is argue. Epbr123 01:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Many residents commute to work outside the town, mainly to Manchester city centre. As at the 2001 UK census, 25,503 of Sale's residents were in employment, whereas only 18,496 people in total had their place of work within the town.

If that can't be summarised by saying that 27% of Sale's residents work outside of the town then it is a non sequitor. ---- Eric 02:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I merely corrected your "facts". It means that at least 27% of Sale's residents work outside of the town. Remember that some people may commute into Sale. Feel free to copy this sentence onto the Stretford article. Epbr123 02:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to run that one by me again. I said "27% of Sale's residents work outside of the town" You said at least 27% of Sale's residents work outside of the town.

In any event I have no intention of copying your statistical misunderstandings anywhere. ---- Eric 01:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I have a degree in statistics, so I'm quite capable of understanding them. If 18,496 of 25,503 Sale residents work within Sale, then 27% of Sale's residents work outside of the town. However, the statement does not say that 18,496 Sale residents work within Sale. It says that 18,496 in total (including people living outside Sale) work within Sale. It is therefore factually incorrect to say that 27% of Sale's residents work outside of the town. Understand? Epbr123 02:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use rationales

Please provide Fair Use rationales for the recently added images. Epbr123 13:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Which ones require a fair use rationale? Nev1 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The Sale FC logo and the Council Arms. Epbr123 15:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought logos didn't need one. I'll get on it anyway. Nev1 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Geography and administration

Why are geography and administration grouped together? Epbr123 13:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why has it taken you so long to ask that question? Is there some secret format for areas within Trafford that only the initiated are allowed access to?
If there is a standard format then let's see it. No more fannying about, just let's see it. ---- Eric 01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The standard layout comes from the Greater Manchester wikiproject. The format was rolled out to virtually every page on a town or villae encompassed by the project a few months ago. I couldn't find anything that explicitly said this is what to do but it seems to have been accepted as the norm. Why geography and administration are grouped together though escapes me. Nev1 15:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting

We should try to focus more on adding information rather than copyediting. It will be given a proper copyedit soon by the League of Copyeditors. Epbr123 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have put the article on hold until the following issues are addressed.

  1. The lead should be expanded to better summarize the article. The length should probably be three or four paragraphs and provide an overview of all or most of the sections.
  2. "It is just north of the town of Altrincham and around 1 mile to the south of the town of Stretford." Instead of using "around", change to "approximately" or "about".  Done
  3. "The local geology consists of sand and gravel deposited during the last ice age." When was the last ice age? Specify. Done
  4. "These wards have fifteen of the sixty three seats on Trafford Council." Add hyphen between sixty three. Done
  5. "That Sale was a township suggests pre-Norman habitation by the Saxons as townships were a Saxon development." Reword the beginning of the sentence, "that" isn't a very good start. Done
  6. "Sale Old Hall, the place of administration for the town, dates back to at least 1577, but possibly since the thirteenth century in the form of another building with the same name." This sentence isn't very clear and could use a better rewrite. Done
  7. "In 1804, 3000 volunteers from northwest England, raised by Sir John Moore to defend against invasion by Napoleon, were inspected on Sale Moor by Prince William of Gloucester." Either expand on this sentence or incorporate it into another paragraph. Single sentences shouldn't stand alone. The same also goes for two paragraphs later ("During the Second World War..."). Done
  8. "Some of Sale's largest employers are supermarkets such as Tesco — currently undergoing a £2 million refurbishment — and Sainsbury’s, both of which have outlets in the town centre." Add an inline citation about the 2 million figure.
    • Statement removed until we can find the source. Epbr123 22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  9. "For a long time, Sale’s businesses played second fiddle to their more prosperous counterparts in Altrincham" Reword "second fiddle", to something more encylopedic. Done
  10. "As at March 2005, there were 1,515 business premises in Sale." If possible, see if this has been updated.
    • No update found. Epbr123 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. In the "Economy" section, the last two paragraphs begin with the same thing; change one of them to add some more variety. Done
  12. "It is a memorial to the 400 men from Sale who died in the First World War and the almost 300 men who died in the Second World War" Add wikilinks for both of the wars. Done
  13. "‘Eyebrow Cottage’" Why does this have '' around it? None of the other landmarks do. Done
  14. "In 2004, the centre received the prestigious British Urban Regeneration Association Award for its innovative and creative use of available space, and for reinvigorating Sale town centre." I think you can remove the comma after space. Done
  15. "The club has produced some outstanding athletes" I think that this should be reworded to remove outstanding as some may see this as POV. Done
  16. Rename "Sport" to "Sports".
    • I think 'sports' may be an American term. Epbr123 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You could be right. If the "Religion" section isn't called "Religions", why should the "Sport" section be called "Sports"? --- Eric 23:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  17. "Sale has four secondary schools and several primary schools – some religious – and according to individual OFSTED reports, most achieve above the national average results in tests." Add inline citation for the last half of the sentence.
    • Statement removed — difficult to cite without providing links to every schools' report. Epbr123 23:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  18. In the "Religion" section, combine some of the sentences into the same paragraph or expand on them. Also, the first paragraph currently could use a better rewrite. Done
  19. "Perhaps the most important politician to come from Sale was Baron Orme[45]." Remove "most important" and use something else. Also the inline citation goes directly after the period. In the next sentence add a hyphen in between left wing. Done
  20. If possible see if there are any more categories that could be added related to the town.
    • I don't think there is. Epbr123 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Altogether, the article is well-written with many inline citations. It is also very broad in coverage which is good to see. I will leave the article on hold for seven days and will pass it if the above issues are addressed. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. When you are done fixing the above suggestions, also let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked Nehrams2020 to re-review the article. Epbr123 00:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have passed the article. Good job on addressing the above issues so quickly. Concerning the "Sport/Sports" issue, I just thought since several sports were being discussed that it would sound a little better to make it plural. If you think that it's fine as is, go ahead and leave it. I wanted to point it out just in case you overlooked it. Continue to improve the article, making sure that all new information is properly sourced. If you have the time, please consider reviewing an article or two at GAC to help with the backlog. Keep up the good work, and I hope you continue to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia! --Nehrams2020 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sale,_Greater_Manchester/Archive_2&oldid=230406509"