# Talk:Federation of Stoke-on-Trent

re: unique County Borough of Teesside, County Borough of Warley are similar examples. Perhaps change to "few examples". MRSC (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's unique in it's formation as a (con)federation by specific act of parliament, admittedly the LGAs of the later part of the 20th century have quite possibly muddied the waters.  Perhaps the best definition was it was the first (and oly for a long time). NtheP (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
That works fine. Thanks. MRSC (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What's with all the extra numbers in the refs, e.g. [1]:252? I'm assuming they are page numbers, but I have never seen a Wikipedia ref done like that. Lozleader (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

They are, see {{rp}}.  It saved having 17 separate references to the same source doc. NtheP (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a new one to me... thanks. Lozleader (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this article could use at least one map to show the various towns. Some other pictures would be nice too... maybe a town hall or two? At the moment the only image it has is a painting of a bloke sitting in a chair!Lozleader (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Can have a look to see what there is. NtheP (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Federation of Stoke-on-Trent/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


### Initial comments
A very interesting, well-referenced and comprehensive article. I've read it several times and checked citations.
At this point in time, I can see only one stumbling block" to the award of GA-status, and that is the WP:Lead. It (the lead) is intended to both introduce the article and summarise the main points.
The current summary of the main points is (in my oppinion): "Four main periods of activity exist: the early proposals made in the first half of the nineteenth century which resulted in greater co-operation between the Potteries towns over law and order; the County plan of 1888, which attempted to form the six towns into a county; the first federation attempt in 1900–1903, which started as a resurrection of the county plan and ended as a failed attempt at the formation of a county borough; and the final federation process between 1905 and 1910.[1]:252" I would suggest that it needs to be expanded by about 200 to 300%.
For instance, (these are just my suggestions of important points, other editors may have different views and that is OK - but the current lead is inadequate): the parliamentary borough of Stoke-upon-Trent to elect PMs; differing views on federation; possible control by Staffordshire County Council and two ferderal proposals.
At this point I'm putting the review "On Hold". I will award GA-status once I consider the WP:Lead to be compliant. Comments, suggestions, questions, etc, can be added below (in this subsection). This page (and the article) is on my watch list, so I will be aware of progress, etc. Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As the primary author, thanks.  I'll give the lead some thought over the next day or two. NtheP (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I gave a go at summarizing the article in the introduction.--EchetusXe 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks EcXe.  I've had another revision which I've added here for discussion rather than keep chopping and changing the article. NtheP (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I like this one. Either of these leads are sufficient for GA, so I'm closing the review and awarding GA. Pyrotec (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

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

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

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

B. Focused: 

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: 
Well illustrated.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

This a comprehensive, well-referenced, and well-illustrated article who's only "failing" was a "thin" lead. This has now been addressed (two versions) so I'm happy to award the article GA-status. This article may have potential to get to WP:FAC (I know that some authors don't like that, and I can understand why), but a WP:PR could be beneficial. Congratulations on producing a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is much better, and the copyedit has really helped. I made a few minor edits on my way through the article. I have just a few points:

"So intense was the debate within the Potteries that some events surrounding the final federation proposal were recorded in the Arnold Bennett novel The Old Wives' Tale." Did Bennett's novels always touch on sources of intense debate? (My point here is not to call for a survey of Bennett's work, but my initial reading of this made me think "so?") Was it used as simply a background setting (as suggested lower in the article) or was it a key point of the plot? If the former, it may be better left out of the article, or consigned to an explanatory note.
"Important steps as they were, none were directed towards any form of co-operation between Burslem, Hanley or any other of the Potteries towns." Needs a cite.
Any reason why "Parliament" is sometimes capitalised and sometimes not?
"County borough status would allow such places to govern themselves independently of the county council." Needs a cite.
Where possible, citations should follow punctuation. This usually means at the end of a sentence.
Why is urban district linked in the explanatory notes and not in the text?
"Fenton district council could accept such a move and withdrew from all discussions on federation forthwith." I'm probably wrong here, but if Fenton could accept the move, why did they withdraw?
"While Stoke town council were in favour, the voters of Fenton were not and voted overwhelmingly against the proposal." Needs a cite.
Why are Association for Promoting the Federation of the Pottery Towns and Burslem Anti-Federation League italicised?
"For procedural and statutory reasons, only the submission made by Longton proved valid." More detail on these reasons?
Thanks, Apterygial talk 05:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I've dealt with all of these.  The last is the most problematic as the House of Lords didn't refer to the reasons just the decision of the Local Government Board that only the Longton submission was valid.  The original records of the LGB for the period in question were destroyed in a fire in 1944 so they're not available for inspection (memo in National Archives ref MH 78/137).  I've rephrased the sentence slightly but I can't see any other obvious sources to expand on this fact. NtheP (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough (I had a little fiddle with the sentence). Good luck with the article. Apterygial talk 23:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

In 1875 the three ancient townships of Westleigh, Bedford and Pennington were amalgated to become Leigh. Tigerboy1966  21:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Whilst undoubtedly one of the more significant mergers of local authorities from this era, I struggle to see how it qualifies as unique, and I disagree that it was the first union of its type or that no other such mergers occurred until the 1960s. Other mergers were carried out before and after Stoke's, using the same legislative process of a provisional order being drafted by the Local Government Board which was then given effect by an act of parliament. The Stoke federation was given effect by the Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3) Act 1908. There were numerous such acts each year at that time, and whilst many related to minor boundary changes or how their councils functioned, there were several examples which led to the mergers of boroughs and urban districts. For example:

Northampton County Borough, Kingsthorpe Urban District, Far Cotton Urban District and St James Urban District merged into a single Northampton County Borough in 1900 under the Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 14) Act 1900.
Poole Municipal Borough enlarged to take in Branksome Urban District in 1905 under the Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 12) Act 1905
Plymouth County Borough, Devonport County Borough and East Stonehouse Urban District merged into a single Plymouth County Borough in 1914 under the Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 18) Act 1914.
Spenborough Urban District created 1915 from merger of urban districts of Cleckheaton, Gomersal and Liversedge.
Thurrock Urban District created 1936 as merger of the urban districts of Grays Thurrock, Tilbury, Purfleet and the Orsett Rural District.
Aireborough Urban District created 1937 as merger of urban districts of Guiseley, Yeadon and Rawdon.
I acknowledge that the source quoted from A History of the County of Stafford (J. G. Jenkins, 1963) does say that the federation was unique, but in light of the above examples (particularly Plymouth), I think Jenkins may have overstated quite how unusual Stoke's federation was. I'd suggest we should reword this article along the lines that it was one of the most significant mergers of districts at that time, but remove reference to it being unique. Stortford (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a pity Jenkins didn't qualify his use of the word 'unique' as federation could be considered unique in several ways depending on how you want to look at the facts. I think what we have got is a) one of the earliest, and b) at the time probably the largest (and most complex?) - in terms of the number of boroughs involved (one county borough, three [municipal] boroughs an two urban districts).  This second point is used by Stobart (2003) [1] in describing federation as unique and, with apologies to students of Northampton's history, with only events in Plymouth being a comparable event.
The word unique doesn't feature in the body of the article, only in a footnote where it is already acknowledged as being an inaccurate term and despite Stobart's use of the word I've no great desire to see it used in the main text. I've no problem in some re-wording to say it was the largest at the time. Nthep (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks - you're quite right, the word "unique" only appears in the footnote. I should have been clearer, the particular bit that I think needs toning down is the uniqueness implied by this phrase in the lead: "An anomaly in the history of English local government, this was the first union of its type and the only such event to take place until the 1960s."
The examples I gave were just those which came to mind - another one of similar scale and complexity (and more population) would be the expansion of Birmingham in 1911 which also involved six districts: a county borough (Birmingham) absorbing a municipal borough (Aston Manor), three urban districts (Erdington, Handsworth, and King's Norton and Northfield) plus a rural district (Yardley). I can see an argument that Stoke's situation was less about one dominant urban authority absorbing smaller neighbours (although some in Hanley at the time might have seen the federation as precisely that), but that's a more nuanced argument than suggesting it was a complete anomaly.
I'd suggest changing that sentence in the lead to something along the lines of "The federation was one of the largest mergers of local authorities, involving the greatest number of previously separate urban authorities, to take place between the nineteenth century and the 1960s." Would you be happy with that? Stortford (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
No problem with that, and possibly an addition to the footnote about Plymouth and Birmingham. Nthep (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)