# Talk:Cine City, Withington

Its definately going to be demolished now - so I can't really see that the article is going to be needed after the dust has settled. There's some pics on http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=21211 if anybody wants to see how it looks inside (very depressing). I propose a quick prod in a months time, if nobody objects. Leibovits (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's going to be demolished, then I'd argue that it makes it more important that we have an article about it. It helps keep the building remembered. History gets lost all too easily... Mike Peel (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the two unreferenced lines below (unreferenced parts in italics). If references can be found for them then they can be added back into the article.

The cinema was regularly visited by stars from Hollyoaks, Coronation Street and Brookside and itself appeared twice on Coronation Street.
However, despite the efforts of its owner and his Chief Projectionist, Kevin Lewis, it was subsequently closed due to competition in July 2001.
Mike Peel (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cine City, Withington/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I will be happy to perform the GAC on this article.  H1nkles (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


### GA Review Philosophy
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.


### GA Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Regarding Lead
Are the coordinates necessary in the lead?  I see them in the usual upper right-hand corner, isn't that enough?
The lead is very short, even though the article is also short, the lead could be expanded to summarize the history of the cinema and what replaced it.  H1nkles (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


### Regarding History
One stub (only one sentence long) paragraph in this section, please consider expanding or combining with another paragraph.
What competition caused it to close?  Was a new theater built or were there just too many in Manchester at the time?  H1nkles (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


### Regarding closure and redevelopment
Watch weasel wording in this phrase, "The building, once considered to be one of the most iconic in Manchester...."  Please consider rewording it.
Otherwise this section is comprehensive and good.  H1nkles (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


### Regarding Replacement building
This section is fine.  H1nkles (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


### Regarding references
Add publisher or work to the following references: 1,2, and 15.
Per WP:CITE newspapers, journals, magazines should be italicized.
Given the changing nature of the web I usually like to see accessdates w/in 3-4 months of my review.  Please update these.
The access dates do not need to be updated. What you need to check is that the links are still live, which they are. You may find this tool useful for your future reviews. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Great thanks, I've heard of this tool but never been able to find it, I'll tuck it away for future use.  H1nkles (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Please update reference 6 (the book) with publisher, year and location.  H1nkles (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


### Regarding overall review
The article is pretty close.
I would like to see if there is any more on the history of the cinema.  You have some interesting detail, is there anything else that can be found on it?
Other than getting a little more indepth on the history (if possible) I would say you need to fix some of the references to fit MOS requirements.
You should also expand the lead a bit to make it more summary in nature.
I'll put the article on hold for a week and give you time to work on these things.  If you need more time just let me know.  Good job.  H1nkles (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. The lead's now expanded, the references should be up to MOS standard, and I've managed to find a little more information on the history. I haven't got the time at the moment to dig much deeper, though... Mike Peel (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks great thanks for the work on the article.  It is improved to the point that I will pass it with confidence.  Well done.  H1nkles (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm David Babsky (mentioned in this article) who owned and ran Cine City from 1997 (bought it in April, re-opened it on May 30th) to July 2001, when it closed.
I've - obviously - plenty of detailed info about the cinema during those four years (and I've movies which were shot within the cinema, and some photos, of course), but as that info is simply what I know, and hasn't been printed in any "authoritative" publication, it might appear to be all ineligible for use in a Wikipedia article!
If anyone's interested I'll be happy to supply any info which you might like ..I'd hate to step on anyone's toes and just start adding things into the article myself, so I'll wait and see what response this note gets.
Written 7:10pm, Friday 26th August 2011. Cheers!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.70.249 (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC) 

Hi David. I've replied to the message you left on my talk page, and have also copied it to your talk page. Just in case you don't spot it there, I've also put a copy below. In summary: more information about Cine City would be absolutely fantastic, but due to the way Wikipedia works it can't just be added into the article immediately as there's no way for the article's readers to verify it. If you can publish the information in a reliable source, e.g. a local newspaper or local history journal, then please also add the information to the article, giving that source as the reference for it (there's no danger of stepping on people's toes if the information you're adding is fully referenced). Otherwise (and I hate to say this), the information can't be used in the Wikipedia article... The situation's a bit different if you want to add photos or movies to the article, though, as they verify themselves (in a way text can't do, due to the technical ease of writing false text compared to assembling a false picture or movie) - please, go ahead and add them, and let me know if you encounter any difficulty doing so. (note, though, that due to the open and collaborative nature of Wikipedia, the images and movies would have to be released under a 'free license' that allows others to also reuse them).
My reply to your message on my talk page follows...
Hi David. Thanks for getting in touch. :-) The problem here is that Wikipedia articles can only use information that has been stated elsewhere - otherwise there's no way for the readers of the article to be able to double-check that information. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth for the background on this - and note that although a lot of what that page says doesn't directly apply here, it still does in general terms. When I was contributing information to the article (which, BTW, was both a pleasure in terms of digging out the information about the cinema's history and development, and a tragedy for how the story ended), I made a point of checking that everything stated in the article could be tied down to reliable external sources. Given the completely open nature of the construction of Wikipedia articles, this strikes me as being a very important approach to stick with (e.g. should the article be vandalised, either on Wikipedia or on a content reuser's site, the errors introduced could be easily identified by a little research). So: please could you publish this information in a source that can be referenced in the article? E.g. could you write an article describing Cine City's history for a local newspaper or historical society publication, or put together a website describing the cinema's history? I'm sure that it would make for fascinating reading, as well as being a good reference for the Wikipedia article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks, Mike. I doubt that I'll "..write an article describing Cine City's history for a local newspaper or historical society publication.." but I've been toying with the idea that I might "..put together a website describing the cinema's history". So if I put material on a website which I create, then Wikipedia can reference that website ..but can't include material which I simply write directly into the article..!
That's one of W's few failings, in my opinion: one can quote some media or other, even not knowing whether that material is actually accurate or not - e.g; the article in the South Manchester Reporter which suggested that "..it closed due to competition from a new multiplex cinema in nearby East Didsbury" ..and so myths get perpetuated.
Anyway, thanks for your replies, and I'll consider creating a website (..I've done a few others..) incorporating stills, video, history, odd facts, etc, about the cinema. What I'll probably do HERE is to add a photo of the plaque, unveiled by Caroline Aherne (..but do I have proof that she did?!) showing that both John Barbirolli and Vi Carson played the piano there (..but are those, too, just myths?) ..thanks for your help and your enthusiasm! Yours, David. 92.233.70.249 (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cine City, Withington. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080523090845/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alscot1/cinemas.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alscot1/cinemas.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611040724/http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/083778cine_city.pdf to http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/083778cine_city.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611224051/http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/083778_CINECITY_APRIL.pdf to http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/083778_CINECITY_APRIL.pdf
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) 22:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)