Greater Manchester
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has just gained WP:GA status thanks to a prompt collaboration from the Greater Manchester WikiProject team. The article is already well referenced and covers every topic set by WP:UKCOUNTIES. We are looking for any advice on ways to improve the article towards WP:FA status and with the wealth of experience the project has I am sure we can do it. Any input is welcome and we look forward to your comments.
Thanks, ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 15:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Krator
From top down, some things I noticed. There's a lot of things, so I'll keep the in-depth copy editing advice to a minimum. This review is terribly subjective, judgemental and all that kind of stuff. Also note that some of my comments directly contradict WP:UKCOUNTIES. On the parts where my comments below contradict that guideline, I firmly believe the guideline to be wrong and I'll be prepared to defend my opinion :)
Infobox
- The list of members of parliament from the infobox is confusing and too long. Furthermore, the only actually interesting thing for the reader there, the distribution between C/L/LD, is not listed. Perhaps list that distribution in the box and link to the list somewhere? Perhaps here?
Done ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 01:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC) - The note 'no county council' belongs in the text body.
- The NUTS and ONS codes don't really tell a non-technical reader much. It would be better presented in the body of the text. The fact that this area is a NUTS 2 area is of interest, for example, but escapes the unfamiliar reader's notice.
- I find the numbered map at the bottom of the infobox confusing for it's purpose: showing where the areas are relative to each other. There is no technical reason why the names cannot be on the map itself.
- I'd love an identifying picture at the top, as Infobox City does, for example (see Manchester for a related example).
- The whole layout of Infobox England Country isn't fantastic, really. Infobox City looks better, for one. Not this article's fault, though.
Lead
- The lead fails to summarise the article properly. It focuses exclusively on information also present in the infobox and the governmental history.
- Some things I really miss are:
- What is the relevance and importance of this area, beyond being some arbitrarily defined bureaucratic government institute? I assume it must be the leading economic area in this-or-that branch of industry, the centre of some region, etc.
- Some history on the formation of the area "Greater Manchester", beyond that some lawmakers made it. What made Manchester become "greater"?
History
- The last point from the lead continues to apply here.
- I do not really see the relevance of the first paragraph of this section, except for the last two sentences: the information contained there is what I think is the key of what should be written about in the history section. Namely, the history of the conurbation and metropolitan area, as opposed to the region in the widest sense. What made these urban areas interconnect, and how did that happen?
- After that, the focus is a lot on the governmental history of the institution Greater Manchester, rather than the metropolitan area Greater Manchester. Some of the information on the former could be moved to the Governance section. This is my key criticism on this section, and applies mostly to the final two subsections.
- As an example on how to tackle the above, think of the history of some of the things listed under the transportation section, and how they came to be. For example, the creation of the M60 ring road must have been a major event in the context of Greater Manchester, as it precisely concerns the 'Greater' part of that phrase. Another area that is lacking in coverage is the industry in the region, arguably the reason why this metropolitan area exists at all.
Geography
- Geography of Greater Manchester is shorter than this section. AFD?
- I suggest to merge the article Greater Manchester Urban Area as a subsection here. It's currently linked, but doesn't really need it's own article. Writing that "the urban area excludes some of the rural parts and includes this-and-that town in another county, and is used for statistical analysis" is enough, probably.
- Excellent section. The satellite image isn't that great, though. Perhaps replace it with an image of the more 'outlying' areas of Greater Manchester?
- (a) Geography of Greater Manchester is underdeveloped, not unwanted. Give it time. (b) The Greater Manchester Urban Area is a totally different animal from the Greater Manchester county, and extends over the borders into (eg) Cheshire. Can we justify talking about (eg) Wilmslow in Cheshire in the Greater Manchester article? (c) The image is a bit dark, but is does cover most - if not all - of the county. Can you see it being useful if I brighten it up a bit like this? Mr Stephen (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Governance
- Excellent as well, with the suggestion that a lot of the more institution-focused material in 'history' may be condensed moved here.
- Forget everything you know about the subject, then read the fourth subsection of this section without clicking on any links. How much did you learn? I find it difficult to grasp the information in this section without reading all linked authorities and other acronyms. A suggestion: instead of "The county runs this organisation which does this-or-that activity", write "This-or-that activity is ran at county level". For example, I really don't care about the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority, mainly because it's five long capitalised words which break text flow and make reading difficult. The fact that waste disposal is arranged centrally is of interest, however. Write about waste disposal, and link the words "waste disposal".
Demographics
- Good section, but what is the relevance of listed buildings that happen to be churches to demographics?
- The sentences supported with reference 52 is both a copyvio and very questionable. Later on, the tower blocks in some suburb are said to be among the greatest in Europe as well. This, too, is questionable.
- (a) None; removed. (b) That student business is an old chestnut. I've tracked down a paper that seems to nail it (in the negative); removed, but open to persuasion at talk. I've added a ((fact)) label to the Salford housing density bit, some editors have recently been working on salford articles, they may have a good reference to hand. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Economy
- Image:Manchester skyline from Irwell Crop.jpg isn't really impressive enough to support the caption.
- The section suffers from WP:PEACOCK problems. Sure, it got all the awards and the praise, as well as the numbers, but why is that? Consider discussing infrastructure and other location factors that may be of influence.
Settlements
- This section is really useful and should be moved up to form a subsection of geography.
- Done that, though it still needs tidying up. Moving it there higlights a bit of repetition, too, which I have removed. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Transport
- Please devote the first paragraph to briefly touching upon the main modes of transport in Greater Manchester, and place the institutional stuff I ranted about above after that. Then discuss these main modes of transport.
- Highway#Quick_facts directly contradicts the Guinness world record claim for widest highway. It may be in the book, but it may be better to not list it if it's false...
- What makes the bus network 'extensive'?
- Transport by train isn't discussed at all.
- Note to project team: See here and here. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Sport
- Please give this section a thorough WP:PEACOCK checkup.
- What is the consensus on what should be discussed at Manchester#Sports and what here?
Places of interest
- This isn't travel wiki, so please rename this section to "Culture" and throw out anything non cultural, and then we'll see.
Hope this helps! User:Krator (t c) 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)