# Talk:Milnrow

The first few sentences of the first paragraph (ie: before mention of the Roman statue) need to be referenced. I think reference 5 (March, Henry Colley (1880). East Lancashire Nomenclature and Rochdale Names. London: Simpkin & Co.) might be the one the relevant source, but it needs to be added after practically every sentence. Nev1 (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I think you're right about this. I'm struggling for source material, but think I can crack this challenge!.... There's only one book about Milnrow (according to Amazon), which I happen to own, and it's just a few paragraphs put together by a local!
Every source I have seen suggests that "the Norman conquest saw the birth of what is now Milnrow". However, it doesn't elaborate what this means! Did they found a settlement? From what I've seen, Milnrow was in Hundersfield, not Butterworth at the time of the conquest. Confusing and challenging. --Jza84 |  Talk   14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
According to pastscape, as well as the Roman artefact, there was a Stone Age axe found in Milnrow so there was some activity in the area. That's what prompted me to ask about "thousands of flint tools" found on the moorland; it sounds a bit much. Nev1 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It does seem alot, but I "borrowed" the text from Rochdale Boroughwide Cultural Trust. The site provides its own sources, so it seems reliable. --Jza84 |  Talk   16:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems good enough then. I think that should be put in as a reference twice, once after the mention of thousands of artefacts and again after the cinerary urn. Nev1 (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Milnrow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Review by Epicadam (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
The are a few flow issues in spots. Nothing egregious, but I would ask the editor to literally read the article out loud. It's probably the best way to spot sentence structure and word choices that could be improved.
B. MoS compliance: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
there are still some  tags in the article. Those need to be resolved.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 
I'm not sure the article is edited enough. By "editied", I mean that there is a lot of information present; possibly too much for a village of Milnow's size. The article size is close to 50k... some cities 100x Milnow's size don't have articles that large. Wikipedia is not meant to be an entirely comprehensive source; it is an encyclopedia. And as an encyclopedia, it should provide the basic who/what/where/when/when/how of a topic and then any particularly noteworthy pieces of information. For each fact given, an editor has to ask him or herself whether or not anybody reading the article would be interested in that information. For example, in regards to the Neolithic artifacts found in Milnow, are they particularly noteworthy? Is Milnow a center for archaeological research? If not, then that information may not be terribly important. Also, little factoids like Queen Elizabeth's visit to Milnow and who operates the waste management systems, etc. Are those truly important? If they are, explain why. If not, consider cutting them out.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I can't recommend GA status yet, but with a little more editing it will certainly be a candidate. I will set the article's review on hold.
I'm slightly confused, is the reviewer saying that the article is too comprehensive? Slow down, have you read the FA criteria? It should be comprehensive, that's the best of wikipedia, something ideally every article should be. That's not to say everything should be included, but what's present is a good summary. Taking the examples you chose, Neolithic artefacts in the North West are an indication of Stone Age activity in the area, isn't that notable? The royal visit? If the Queen had just been passing through, fair enough don't include it, but it was part of a significant event in the town's history: the opening of the motorway. In short, everything in the article is notable and referenced, ie:"if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Also, the readable prose in the article is more like 23kb, not 50 mentioned before or the 44kb of raw data, indicating that it probably isn't too long. Nev1 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I've addressed the "" issue. I also share the sentiments of Nev1. That said, I think a copy-edit or proof-read by another would help as I think the article might be suffering from "one-editoritis" --Jza84 |  Talk   11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


### Final Passage?
I think the article is pretty much at GA status... I have only one question:

"During the Middle Ages, the small, scattered community in and around Milnrow was primarily agrarian, with the growing and milling of corn being the main labour of the people." I'm confused. How did England have corn in the middle ages when it was first brought to Europe from the Americas in the early 16th century?
After that bit is fixed, I believe the article is ready for GA status as it is well-written, informative and sourced. Although, if a source says that Milnrow milled corn in the Middle Ages, I'd probably be more than distrustful of other information it provided! Best, Epicadam (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The source given does use "corn" explicitly, but by "corn" it probably means some sort of cereal or grain (British English I'm afraid). I could change it to "cereal" if there's no objection? --Jza84 |  Talk   00:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been bold, and made a change with this diff. I hope this helps, --Jza84 |  Talk   00:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Perfect. Well, any issues that have been addressed have been corrected and the article is broad, but detailed, informative and well-written. I certainly think it qualifies for GA status. Best, Epicadam (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"It is one of the largest developments of its kind, and is expected to employ 7,250 people directly and 1,750 people indirectly by around 2020." The largest developments of its kind where - in Rochdale, The UK, Europe, the World? This seems to be just a bit of advertising hyperbole from the website of the company that's building the park, and the reference for it preceeds the sentence anyway. Richerman (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't considered this. Can you suggest an alternative? --Jza84 |  Talk   00:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the source is a problem - its probably the only one there is, but I would take out the bit about it being the largest of its kind and either move the reference to the end or else use it twice. Richerman (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a bit of stuff on the net about the development - I might be able to tighten this paragraph up using some alternative material. :) --Jza84 |  Talk   00:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I was able to fix that area... made it a tad more neutral and less aggrandizing. The only thing is one little fact tag about the mill. If there's just a source that says something about that last mill, that would be perfect. Best, Epicadam (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a lot better now, I've changed the text on the image to match the main text. Just one other thing, shouldn't the title on the image of the council's emblem be a sheep being weighed? I would have thought you can only weigh the fleece once it's been taken off the sheep. Richerman (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, technically you're right, but 1) just exactly what would "fleece" look like? It'd be some odd emblem of cloud, I would imagine. And 2) perhaps they're not selling the fleece but rather the sheep itself? Really, I have no idea. Epicadam (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I did think the same thing about sheep/fleece, but I used "fleece" as it is used in the reference given. Perhaps in heraldry, this icon is known as a fleece? --Jza84 |  Talk   11:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought you must have got it from the reference, that's why I didn't change it. Actually you're absolutely right about it being a term used used in heraldry. A search on google for "fleece heraldry" came up with this link which explains it. It's actually know as a "banded fleece" and is used on the Rochdale Coat of Arms see http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/great_man.html Richerman (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
A "banded fleece" eh? Sounds like that was a great bit of research Richerman! Perhaps we ought to rephrase the clumsy "a fleece being weighed" for the more accurate "a banded fleece"?
From there, we just need to crack the "Butterworth Hall Mill" demolition date. --Jza84 |  Talk   16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Your too kind, just a bit of googling really. Do you know if the Milnrow councillor took it from the Rochdale COA or vice versa? Unfortunately the link I've given above for the COA doesn't say when it was granted. Richerman (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Aha, this link says 1857. Richerman (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
1857 was the date for the COA of the County Borough of Rochdale, rather than the Metropolitan Borough of Rochdale, although both include the fleece. I'm afraid the info provided in the article is a paraphrase of the source material - there isn't any additional detail about the icon. It's certainly used locally though, as evidenced by the welcome signage --Jza84 |  Talk   17:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling finding a demolition date for this mill. Apparently, it was demolished in 1996, but I want to verify it. I have some images at this site too. --Jza84 |  Talk   00:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there's no info, then there's no info. It might be best just to find another source that describes the overall downtown in the town's post-WWII economy and just leave specific information about the mill out. It's also possible that the municipality may have construction/demolition permit records, etc. but I'm not sure it's worth going that far to go searching through public record! Best, Epicadam (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think I've found something near the bottom of this page (which is probably where I got the info from). I'm concerned that it may not be considered a reliable source, but I think in the circumstances, it would be adequate for verification. Thoughts anyone? --Jza84 |  Talk   20:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it might just be acceptable, the page does mention a book as its source at the end. I think it's worth a try for now. Nev1 (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, we are talking about the demolition of a mill that is verified in a couple of forums and open-source content (e.g. here). The "amature" website provided above shares the same demolition date. Ultimately this isn't a very controversial thing we're aiming to verify (I mean we can even keep the demolition date ambiguous to the decade), so I think it might be a slight dash of WP:IAR. --Jza84 |  Talk   20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the Geograph.org.uk source is okay. I mean, I added the {{Fact|date=August 2008}} tag thinking that the info might be easy to find. Seeing as it is not, keeping the present ambiguous date is probably fine. My main issue was not really with the destruction date, which, really, is not all that notable, but rather that the Butterworth was the last mill... I mean, for a city whose symbol is a sheep and whose history is defined by the textile industry not to have a single mill left is quite something. -Epicadam (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Tell me about it! The whole region is probably still recovering from the transition.
So, where does that leave us for GA? Can you advise Epicadam? Don't feel obliged to grant it if you have outstanding concerns - I'd rather see a proper good article than obtain a badge that says it is so. :) --Jza84 |  Talk   21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd sayjust use the Geograph source in there as well as this bit from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4928844.stm which describes Manchester's mill industry in decline. WP:PROVEIT only requires cited sources for challenged information or information likely to be challenged, which no one has done (and I doubt will). So put those pieces in there and I'll do the final GA review. Best, Epicadam (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)