# Talk:Middleton, Leeds

This may be a question with no answer but are we sure that Middleton actually counts as part of Leeds?  The article goes on about it being isolated and semi-detached.  Maybe, this is because it's actually a village.  I was browsing on Vision of Britain and, prior to the 1974 local government revolution, Middleton was never considered as part of Leeds.
http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10454463
http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10454451
It was in Hunslet Rural District and then Rothwell Urban District.  Perhaps, it should be down as "Leeds environs".

Middleton as far as i am aware despite it's location, it's seen as traditional within the City of Leeds. Though i'm going to double check with some Middleton residents. 
Whohe!

Hi.  Glad to see that you're investigating this somewhat obscure question.  Just a quick question: what do you mean when you say "traditional"?  It's just that it seems that, prior to 1974, it was not seen as part of the City of Leeds, so, if it is now, it must have been "accepted" since then.  I wonder if it was built by the Coal Board.  It does seem like a pit village a la Fitzwilliam.  Anyway, be interested to see what you find out.  Thanks.  Epa101 10:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that it's going to have to be altered anywhere, seeing as the village of Middleton seems to have existed before the building of council housing in the 1920s.  http://www.middletonrailway.org.uk/news/20050330.pdf  It has to be stated that it was originally a pit village.  If it is now considered to be part of Leeds, I'm not sure if it can be classified now as a "council estate".  I mean, imagine if Wakefield grew until Sharlston and Streethouse were on its outskirts.  It would seem a bit odd to then call them "council estates".
I found another resource http://www.middletonpark.leedslearning.org/pub/CustomerSites/leedskit/ton-030930173257.nsf/0/3DF165B57B4596FC80256EE10046739E?open&add=yes  that saw Middleton as part of Leeds.  It talks about the park being handed over to the people of Leeds in the '20s, and says that the council housing was built to meet demand in Leeds.  This seems like a very tricky question.  Epa101 20:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It is definitely seen as part of Leeds now, it has now real independence.  Neighbouring Morley is seen by many as seperate, but Middleton joins on to Beeston and Belle Isle now and has done for since the 1930s.  Its only a few miles from the centre of Leeds.  Its reletive proximity to Wakefield is probably the only reason to suggest otherwise, once the new housing developments are finished it may join seamlessly onto Ardsley and Outwood via which it would be seamlessly linkes to Wakefield. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the book A History of Modern Leeds (1980), map on page 457, edited by Derek Fraser, Middleton became part of Leeds County Borough in 1919.--Harkey (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have placed an 'inuse' tag on the Middleton page as I have some edits to make and images to add.  Further work will be required over the next two or three days so I shall leave an 'underconstruction' tag.

I'm not aware of any iron mining in Middleton, there may be iron in the underlying rocks but I don't think enough ever to be exploited. If no reference can be found can this reference be removed?
--J3Mrs (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It was added in this edit by User:Mtaylor848 - let's ask him for his source. PamD (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Have put a note on his talk page. PamD (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I hope I can add quite a bit more stuff to this article. I have already altered the layout quite a bit as the headings didn't match the content. 
I am not good at uploading images and there are quite a few on Geograph including a nice one of Middleton Church, might someone be able to help?--86.161.166.173 (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't remember which source I have used, but I wouldn't have just made it up.  Looking since I have found a source which provides evidence of iron mining in Middleton's history, I shall add it to the text.  Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any need for a gallery of three pictures of the same thing in this article? I have provided some different images in the text to illustrate different aspects of Middleton, I don't think a gallery is needed.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I would say the gallery is now superfulous.  I inserted it when the article was short (and thereby lacking in space for images).  I shall remove it and in its place insert a box linking it to Middleton's page on commons (has it not allready got one).  Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this page could probably be put forward for GA status.  Anyone agree? Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It is some considerable way off GA status, lacking in population and demography section, history and economy unfinished. I am still looking for material for this article so I think not.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Probably the lead needs some work as it rather thin and does not really summarise the article. Usually best left till last so you can gather the information from the rest of the article. Keith D (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Middleton, Leeds/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Meetthefeebles (talk · contribs) 22:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, as a fellow lover of local history and writing articles on smaller settlements, I'll review...
Initial comments
Looks like an interesting article which is well written and which I enjoyed reading. However, a couple of things struck me at first read:
1. The first thing I'd note is that there are a couple of sections missing from the article that I would have hoped to find in the article, namely a 'demography' and a 'notable persons' section. The latter depends on the suburb (and whether or not anyone famous lives/lived there!) but the former should be included per Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. Can this be included? Census information should be available via the Office of National Statistics or perhaps even locally- many councils publish online datasheets for individual wards/suburbs and these often include demographic information. I'd suggest a bare minimum of suburb population, % of male/female residents, possible ethnic breakdown etc. An excellent example of such a section (which was provided to me at my first WP:GAN) is available for Cheadle Hulme and this will help you with structure and content.

Notable people sections are most definately not required and the notable personalities connected with Middleton are mentioned and linked in the text.J3Mrs (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I mentioned in the previous section that the article was unfinished and no work has been done to address it since so I am rather surprised by this nomination but I will try to find something in the next few days.J3Mrs (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
2. The lead could be more comprehensive, but it might be worth leaving that until the demography section is included.
That will probably keep you busy for a little while, so I'll stop here for now and let you crack on. I've placed the review on hold. Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, now there is a demography section, I'll go through the article in a bit more depth. On closer inspection there is still quite a bit to be done to meet the WP:GA criteria. I'll start at the start:
Lead 

The opening sentence doesn't make a great deal of sense and I think should be reworded.
fixed J3Mrs (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Much better Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
As a non-Yorkshire native myself, a blue-link to Morley and Rothwell would help (if they exist).
Moved to first occurrenceJ3Mrs (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
That's also better Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I seem to recall that quotations ought not be included in a lead (I might be wrong, though, and can't find anything in WP:lead to confirm or deny this). If the quote is to stay, it will need a proper reference (i.e. a page number).
ref providedJ3Mrs (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I still have a nagging feeling about that quote. Whilst WP:lead doesn't expressly exclude quotations and citations, the wording is a little unclear: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. This includes specific facts such as quotations..." I like the quote, but I think it would be better in the 'History' section?
The lead should make reference to the most important issues in the article and at present this one doesn't (see WP:lead). For example, the most notable landmark is the Water Tower, and this isn't mentioned in the lead. There is also no reference to any of the sports teams included in the article. I tend to use some of the geographical information too ("Middleton is built upon predominantly coal and fire–clay") and the population figure should also be included. I was advised that, as a guide, the most important thing in each section of the article should be briefly included as this helps to establish notability for the settlement.
I don't think the water tower or community sports teams are the most important issues about Middleton and have left them out but I have included the population figure and some other stuffJ3Mrs (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
That's fine- you know a lot more about Middleton than I do. However, your population figure requires a comma in the appropriate place (WP:Ordinal)
History
The main issue here is a lack of citations required by WP:V. For example:

Some of the references cover more than one sentence
Is the first sentence taken from a source? If so, it needs a citation.
The first sentence of paragraph 4 is a little confusing and could be re-written.
There is a comma missing after "Middleton Estate and Colliery Company" in paragraph four.
FixedJ3Mrs (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Everything from "In 1871 William Henry Maude..." to "built on the site" is unreferenced and will need to be supported in the usual way per WP:V and Criteria #2 WP:WIAGA.
Done
"The Brandlings owned six collieries in Durham". This also needs a citation in support.
Supported by ref 14
The beginning of the paragraph on Middleton Railway is a little confusing. Which Act of Parliament established the railway and which was the first Railway Act in Britain (the blue link provided simply takes me to the page on Acts of Parliament)?
It is a general statement which is supported by a ref to Burt & Grady, J3Mrs (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Then it needs rewording because it doesn't read well. The second sentence states that "This is the first railway act" but the name of the Act is never specified- what is "the first railway Act?". Ideally this will be in the offline source material or, alternatively, the two sentences should be re-worded Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
RewordedJ3Mrs (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
"By 1934, 2,377 houses had been built and the Middleton housing estate was considered to be a "garden suburb", however it was found to be remote and lacking in facilities by the residents." This is a somewhat contentious statement which requires support.
The reference for the final statement in the paragraph is a little ambiguous. I clicked on it and was directed to a 36 page document. A page number at least would be helpful here.
The above 2 points are found on p3 which I added to the refJ3Mrs (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Governance
This section is fine but a little sparse. Some additional information could be included, such as:

The names of the three present Labour Councillors, presuming that this is still the case as the date given in two years ago.
Names can change frequently and do not need to be givenJ3Mrs (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Just because something doesn't have to be given doesn't per se mean that it shouldn't. It would take all of five minutes to find these and add them to bring the section up to date (presumably there have been local elections since May 2010)?
I strongly disagree with naming councillors as it makes the article very high maintenance and is not required.
I usually include a small info box with the most recent local council election results included. See Sheriff Hill for an example of this. This gives useful information and tends to give good information as to the strength of the political leanings of the population in the suburb.
Not necessary I have written several GAs and have never need one.J3Mrs (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Fine Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Who is the present sitting MP representing the people of Middleton? What political party is s/he a member of? .
DoneJ3Mrs (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The third sentence relating to boundary changes requires support.
RemovedJ3Mrs (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll let you have a look at these. I have this page and the article page on my watch-list, so once these are addressed I will continue Meetthefeebles (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I've covered everything so far
I broadly agree, though I would ask you again to consider looking at the issue discussed here:
The first sentence of the '20th century' section requires a supporting citation.
Supported at the end of the 2nd sentenceJ3Mrs (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I would add an additional reference to the end of the sentence in that case, as this is not clear due to the first sentence not sharing the context of the second; one refers to the lease of private land for use as a park and the very next one refers to an important issue of governance and housing. Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
It is not necessary to reference consecutive sentences to the same source.J3Mrs (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Those sentences are completely out of context with one another. Those two sentences have no relationship to each other at all (except perhaps in the context provided by the offline source) and the casual reader coming across the article is very unlikely to deduce that the citation refers to both (I certainly didn't). Might it be worth slightly rewording so that the chronology of events becomes the context: "In 1919, the once private grounds of Middleton Lodge were leased by Leeds Council for use as a public park. One year later, on 1 April 1920, Middleton was incorporated into the County Borough of Leeds." I appreciate that I probably sound like I am banging on about nothing but the first half a dozen times I read those two sentences they seemed very strange bedfellows... 

Bang on but they are from the same page
Anyhow, I've had another peruse:
Geography
Some small issues but generally this section looks sound:

Can we have a geographical context: How far south of Leeds is Middleton?
WP:UKCITIES recommends also that a distance to London be provided
WP:UKCITIES also suggests comment is made on topography: is the land flat, hilly, sloping in any direction? Are there any hills or rivers in the settlement? (I've never been to Middleton so I do not know if there are...)
"a plateau which falls away sharply to the west " and there are no rivers so none mentionedJ3Mrs (talk)
The same guideline suggests providing climate figures if these are available?
Suggests but does not demandJ3Mrs (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No, but WP:GA criteria require that an article be broad in coverage. By simply refusing to add information on the grounds that it isn't 'required', the article runs the risk of failing to satisfy that criteria Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Do we have a citation for the height above sea level of the water tower?
On which page of ref.26 is the motorway information provided?
Economy
This is another section which is rather sparse, especially in a suburb which contains nearly 30,000 residents:

It is sparce because it is largely residential and largely deprived, its history is dealt with in history, but I'll look
This is an economy section, not a history section. I refuse to believe that a suburb with nearly 30,000 people in it has this little in terms of an economy, residential suburb or not Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Ref 35 is a mess and as a result doesn't work at the moment.
Works for meJ3Mrs (talk)
Sorry, meant ref.36 Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Where are the areas of deprivation? Are they small areas of the suburb or are lots of areas affected? Presumably this is measured against the Index of Multiple Deprivation? A little more detail would be good here to better inform the reader.
The entire second paragraph is unreferenced and I'm not sure that it belongs in this section. Additionally, it seems to be a repetition of much more detailed information provided in the History section. I'd simply remove this.
Most of the third paragraph is also unreferenced.
Are there any major past employers? It seems the suburb was shaped by the coal industry in the past– Perhaps the last sentence of the 'history' section would be a good way to start this section?
There are no major employers since the coal industry which wasover 40 years ago. It is a large area of mainly social housingJ3Mrs (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Hence my suggestion to move the last sentence of the history section to this section Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
But it's historyJ3Mrs (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Are there any areas which are major contributors to the economy of the suburb? St Georges, perhaps? Any 'High Street' areas? Might these be major local employers?
What do you mean by major?J3Mrs (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Major in terms of the suburb. Whilst it is a residential area, it must have a high street of some kind, where local residents can find work and spend money. Even tiny settlements have one or two streets which account for the large part of the settlement's actual economic activity. Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Why must it have a "High Street"? I quote from the article, "Middleton has two small shopping areas, Middleton Park Circus and Middleton District Shopping Centre". I will expand later.
Slow but steady progress...I'll have a look again once you address these Meetthefeebles (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not writing a school report and I consider "Slow but steady progress" extremely dismissive. I never considered nominating this article at GAN but I am doing my best to address these issues. You are asking for sections eg climate that are not included in all GA's, I know I have written several. I will endeavour to address your requirements but I will not make work. I am out now, thanks for your condescentionJ3Mrs (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I was not being dismissive or condescending at all and was, in fact, attempting to be genial in the face of what has been a somewhat arduous review for us both. My sincere apologies if I have come across otherwise. I was actually referring to the time it was taking for me to get through the article, not you. I have been at work all day and have been pinching the odd half hour here and there to conduct this review to try and keep up with the speed of your response- I know how frustrating it can be when you wait for a response to comments made at both WP:GAN and WP:FAC so I have had a busy day trying to fit this review in with my working tasks. 
I also appreciate that you didn't nominate the article and I also appreciate that you are trying to make good an article that, by your own admission was not finished and required more work before it reached GA standard. I did not see that the nominator has effectively gone AWOL: I imagined he would actually keep tabs on an article he nominated for review. 
Ultimately, I do not believe that the article is broad enough in it's coverage at this stage to merit being a Good Article. I could (and perhaps should) have simply said so at the outset of the review and, honestly, I would have done if I'd noticed that the GA nominator had vanished. 
However, I don't want to do this whilst you are working to make improvements to the article. On the other hand, this will require quite a bit more additional work in my opinion. The recommendations I have made are, I think, important in ensuring that this article has a sufficiently broad coverage to meet the GA criteria. I agree that this will require additional research and writing on your part and, as someone who didn't nominate the article, I understand if you want to not make work for yourself.
I appreciate that we both have written GA's before on settlements and suburbs and that perhaps we have different views of what is required. That is, I think, always the potential result of the subjective nature of these reviews. If you wish, I can withdraw from the review and you can ask someone else to conduct/complete the review for you? Alternatively, I can simply fail the nomination on the coverage grounds outlined above and you could either work on the article in your own time, wait perhaps for the nominator to re-appear or even ask for a re-assessment? 
I agree to abide by whatever option you choose to pursue. My apologies again. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This scope of this article is easily broad enough for the sort of settlement it is. It is not at FAC and it doesn't need to address every single detail. I will not withdraw from the review as I made a 30 mile round trip this morning to borrow some books I used over two years ago. However I cannot write about something that does not exist, High Streets, rivers, nor will I make work by adding the names of councillors etc. J3Mrs (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that you withdraw from the review: I appreciate that you have obviously put some considerable work into the article in the past and over the last few days. I was suggesting that I withdraw and we open the review up to a fresh reviewer? I have as little interest as I am sure that you do in allowing the review to descend into the kind of negative affair that I fear it is fast becoming. Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If you will give me a week to twiddle, I think the article will be in better condition. I was taken by surprise by its nomination and am sure there is enough material to make a GA. Thank you. J3Mrs (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I have the article on my watch-list so will keep an eye out for the changes you make (some of those made this morning look good, by the way). Ping my talk–page when you are ready for me to look at the article again. Meetthefeebles (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not operate well under pressure. I will let you know when I've done, thanks. J3Mrs (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


### Re-Review
As requested, I have waited until J3Mrs (talk) is ready before looking at the article again. As a lot of work has been put into the article since the first comments above were made, I intend to simply ignore everything above and effectively 'start again'.
Initial comments Looks a lot better now, more depth in almost all areas, consistent and thorough referencing, well written...
LeadThis is much better
HistoryLooking good now, well written and well referenced throughout. Just a couple of small points/suggestions:

Could 'single combat' be blue-linked?
Done, good link
Similarly, Charles John Brandling might be linked here?
Done I thought it was linked, must have lost it in rewriting
The Middleton Railway founded in 1758 is the oldest continuously working railway in Britain established by an Act of Parliament, the first such act in England. This sentence could be a little better grammatically I think; consider perhaps commas after 'railway' and '1758', the words 'to be' between 'Britain' and 'established' and I think a semi-colon would be better than the comma between 'Parliament' and 'the'.
Done I think
Similar suggestions at Before 1840 women and children were employed in the mines and there were frequent accidents. Might 'Prior to 1840' be a better way to start the sentence and I think a comma should be added after '1840'
Done comma but not Prior to, sorry pet hate
A semi-colon might be better than a comma after '24 deaths'?
Done
Broom Pit was the deepest at 810 feet (250 m), and longest-lasting of the Middleton collieries. Slight re-wording suggestions here: 'Broom pit, at 810 feet (250m), was both the deepest and longest-lasting of the Middleton collieries'.
Not done as "both" is unnecessary and would introduce redundant words per WP:MOS
GovernanceAgain, looking a lot more meaty now. Just one suggestion;

Can 'Rothwell' be blue-linked anywhere? Perhaps this is the right place? (genuine question)
Linked in History any more would be WP:OL
GeographySection now looks fine: were you able to obtain the climate data? If so, that would be a nice addition.

I will add a small table when I can find rainfall figures (Really I will)
Demography

First sentence could be re-written as it is a bit complex. Suggest- In 2010, the Middleton Park ward, which includes Belle Isle, had 27,487 inhabitants of which 52.2% were female and 47.8% male. 21.5% of residents were aged 15 or under compared with an England national average of 18.7%.
Done, now two sentences but is is not good to start them with figures
The next sentence might benefit from some figures- what is the life expectancy, in years, of both Middleton and Leeds?
Done added figures
There is an odd comma after 1,201 which looks like it can be removed.
removed
Suggest putting 1,307 in brackets and removing the comma after 'most' to help the next sentence read a little more fluidly?
Done
Like the population table but the title is something of a misnomer- the data provided doesn't go as far as 1961 and in one year the population declines, so not sure if there is 'population growth'? Perhaps 'population change' might be better?
Done
Economy This looks much better. Just one issue- The sentence regarding Middleton Clinic would benefit from a reference.

Removed as it's not really about the economy
Landmarks 

Is 'Park Halt' this? If so, a blue-link might help?
Linked
The semi-colon after 'From Middleton' might be better as a comma.
Done
Suggest re-wording of The 19th-century St Mary's Church,[61] its contemporary lych gate and flanking walls are Grade II listed buildings.[62] to something a little less complex: The lych gate and flanking walls of the 19th century St Mary's Church are both Grade II listed buildings.
added with as three structures are listed
Transport A generally sound section. One suggestion:

The original plans for the Leeds Supertram included line to Middleton, but were amended to save on costs and the later plans stipulated a terminus at Stourton. Suggest an 'a' be added between 'included' and 'line' and the addition of the word 'these' between 'but' and 'were'
Done but use they
Education

The only issue here is an inconsistent use of '%'; some are immediately after the data and others are spaced (15% and 69.6 %, for example). According to MOS:PERCENT, the correct method is unspaced.
Done
Religion

Suggest a comma after 'In 1845'?
Reordered
'Out of the parish, two more were created...' Suggest adding 'churches' to the sentence to assist with context?
added parishes
In the final sentence, suggest adding a comma after the word 'building'.
Done
Sport

Only two 'issues; firstly, should 'Park F C' be spaced as here or unspaced (Park FC). I suspect the latter is correct.
Done
Is this the correct league for the rugby team? If so, suggest blue-link (though I note that there is no mention of Middleton Marauders so it might not be the correct one?)
Found new ref & ce
References

Ref 19: is 'cotton-times' a reliable source?
The info there is correct but I don't have an exact book ref at the minute so I have removed "world's first"
Ref 87 doesn't appear to work anymore.
New ref
OverallThere looks like a lot here but there are mostly minor fixes and suggestions and the article is now very close to WP:GA. Will look at it again once the above are considered and will keep the article on-hold pending a response. Meetthefeebles (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have fixed most, but I simply cannot write "Prior to" or introduce "both" into the text. I hope that's an improvement. J3Mrs (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no objection to leaving the 'prior to' out: that's just my natural lawyer instinct and is probably a bad habit anyway...


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

A suitably broad, well-reference, well-illustrated article.
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: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I've assessed this article against the GA criteria and, in light of the considerable improvements made, I am now satisfied that all of them are met, so I am awarding GA status– well done! 
Congratulations on bringing the article up to standard, especially for your work over the last week or so. Consider reviewing an article against the criteria. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/leeds/
Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Middleton, Leeds/CommentsTalk:Middleton, Leeds/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Substituted at 01:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Middleton, Leeds. 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/20120323162640/http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/020_2008WEB.pdf to http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/ResearchReportsPdfs/020_2008WEB.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) 23:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Middleton, Leeds. 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/20090308112029/http://www.cottontimes.co.uk/blenko.htm to http://www.cottontimes.co.uk/blenko.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126205541/http://leeds.gov.uk/page.aspx?pageidentifier=63939FAC8F1A7A5B80256E1B003F7561 to http://www.leeds.gov.uk/page.aspx?pageidentifier=63939FAC8F1A7A5B80256E1B003F7561
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/9CF6E371-0C53-4B3C-89CD-D2CC4A02A665/0/LeedsRouteMap.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) 22:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Middleton, Leeds. 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/20090310082318/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RAblenkinsop.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RAblenkinsop.htm
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) 16:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)