Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

starting GA review. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Initial review

Looks like a reasonable article, except for the grammar in the WP:Lead.

• Fixed. -- Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Some initial constructive but critical comments before I do an in depth review tomorrow:

• FurnessHouse does not look like a 1970s building, presumably it has been reclad?

• I suppose the windows may have been changed, but it still looks remarkably like the building shown in these contemporary photographs. [1] -- Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• You make a valid point. The windows looked wrong to me, they appear to to be either a blue glass or semi-mirrored glass, but it could be the more recent addition of a window coating; I see that the article has been "tweaked" a bit to add some clarification. Done Pyrotec ( talk) 11:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• presumably the Manchester Civilian and the Civilian are the same ship; and the Manchester Regiment and the Regiment are the same?

• Yes - I have used this 'device' at other points to reduce 'verbosity', but only where the specific ship's name is repeated in close succession in the narrative. RuthAS ( talk) 23:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• when I did history at school we were told that the Manchester Ship Canal was built because the merchants in Manchester did not like the charges the merchants in Liverpool were imposing for importing Cotton, so the Manchester merchants decided to build the ship canal bypassing Liverpool. This article seems to suggest that the ship canal was built to Manchester, but the Liverpool merchants did not like it, so there were no ships using it. I can understand the Liverpool lot not liking it; but as the Manchester lot built it, why did they wait for three years before arranging for some ships to use it (it does not make economic sense)? Pyrotec ( talk) 22:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Have added further narrative to help cover your point - but cannot directly answer your point re '3 years delay' - perhaps this was linked to Manchester being 'hard up' after the higher than predicted cost of the canal! Also, Liverpool was the 'big (bad?) boy' and could and did 'lean on' the shippers not to switch trade from the Mersey. RuthAS ( talk) 23:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Mere speculation on my part: perhaps the ship owners coming with say cotton from the US were not willing to spend and extra one or two day traversing the length of the canal to the new port of Manchester when they could unload at their traditional port of Liverpool. Pyrotec ( talk) 11:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Hopefully to help clarify, there were ships using the canal before the founding of Manchester Liners. From the Port of Manchester article you'll see that the first ship carrying cotton arrived on 17 January 1894, and between 1895 and 1896, 121,336 bales of cotton travelled up the ship canal from America by ship. But the volume of traffic was less than had been hoped for, so in 1897 Manchester Liners was set up. But it was never the only shipping line to use the ship canal, just the only one based in Manchester. -- Malleus Fatuorum 11:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• The 'Early days' section does say that ... 'shippers were slow to introduce services...', taken directly from Gray, and that does seem to be the position. On writing the article on ML, I was careful not to overlap too much with the article on the canal, or Salford Docks, but felt that a fairly brief intro was needed to answer the question 'why was the line set-up?'. RuthAS ( talk) 13:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• In-text references: There are some 'factual statements' in the article that are not referenced. It was felt that to reference every one of these would be 'over-egging' the piece! Each factual statement was taken from one of the books listed in the Bibliography section. RuthAS ( talk) 15:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
• additions and improvements: This editor is conscious of the dangers of creating a 'moving target' for the reviewing editor. While improvements can always be made to any article, this editor will now 'cease and desist' with altering 'ML', unless specifically asked to do so by the reviewing editor! RuthAS ( talk) 15:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• Thanks. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

One more mis-formed sentence: On 4 June 1917 the second Manchester Trader en route Souda Bay, Crete, to Algiers engaged in a running fight with U-boat U 65 before the Trader was captured and sunk near Pantellaria island with the loss of one crew. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A good knowledgeable and readable article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Reasonably so, although there is scope for adding more (see above).

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Strong on the ships and the routes

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Strong on the ships and the routes, a bit less so on the land-base side. There is a bit more info in the Monopolies Commission report (referenced) that could utilised. That said, it is still a good GA.

Congratulations. The article is being listed as a GA. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply