So, update on what needs to be done. The transfer records needs to be prosified and referenced. Do we really need to mention all of the records given that we already have Progression of British football transfer fee record? I also think that the top scorers section should be moved up and made a subsection of the players section. It makes more sense there and would flow a bit better. Thoughts? Woodym55512:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phenomenal oggie. I'll allow the text! No stress about getting it done, just as long as you can allow me to finish the review before I sod off to Laos this time next week...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The project now has 31 members. 3 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. Andrew has also created another template for your talk page (even though this links to your userpage) which displays for all to see that you are a member of the project. You can add it to your page by including {{WPGM Talk}} to the page. It may be difficult to see the true effects of these welcoming messages, but I'm estimating that since the introduction of these that 12 new users have joined, all 100% have accepted their invitations, and therefore they are 100% successful in their aim.
Greater Manchester Article News
Once again, the project has been subject to much praise from three newly promoted featured articles, and one more good article. Oldham (nom), Manchester (nom), M62 motorway (nom) and Chat Moss (review) have all passed with flying colours. Featured articles now make up 0.03% more of the overall articles that there are relating to the project, than last month. Of all 791 pages which are tagged with this template, 100% have been assessed with the new scale which was introduced last month. It may also be worth noting two others pages that are undergoing transformations are: List of companies based in Greater Manchester and Belle Vue Zoo.
Current Debates
There was a lengthy debate over Manchester Airport this month, which lead to three article for deletions, second nominations viewable here and deletion review viewable here. Basically, what happened was there was quite a great misunderstanding of what the purpose of the lists actually were. They were to compile a list of the destinations served by each terminal and linked along into a sub-page, where it would seem the overview page (i.e. Manchester Airport) would look less cluttered, as was the suggestion at the peer review. Some participants at the first AFD, stated that reviews shouldn't be carried out upon unless there is consensus, and as they are not authorative should only be used as a guide. It was soon sorted though and all three daughter-lists were deleted. There has also been a change to the projects aims, which took a dramatic overhaul this week following the FA pass of Manchester. The change was performed by Jza84. It is now recognised that we should bring not only top importance articles to FA standard but also ones that have been long-since reviewed, like Altrincham and Stretford. And if you're wondering why Salford is there it's due to the fact that there is a consensus among the project members that as Salford is in such close vicinity to the City of Manchester, that it's our "duty" to help promote it. The change came about about after this discussion.
Monthly Challenges
New this month, we have to get Greater Manchester upto Featured Article Standard. However, with Manchester now rated as FA-Class and the proposed "skipping" of the GA process, it may not be too long before we see this under the success section on the project mainpage. It would be ideal if all 791 articles were at least GA standard, but that will never happen in the next month! But please if you can, assess your ability to understand an article and if you're acquauinted with the task in hand and potentially long wait for a writing and for a review, go ahead! Be bold. The progress monitor can be seen here.
Once again, Portal:North West England has been subject to much exposure on behalf of it's editors. The current status of the portal is looking good and it has so far gained unanimous support at it's FPOC. Hopefully, it'll be promoted and we'll have yet another success on our hands. Also, most major articles that are relevant have been tagged with a shortcut to the Portal mainpage, by Jza.
And finally, have a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Hi, I noticed you've been updating Didier Drogba with information from an article in the Times. I've removed the Olivier Tebily reference, on the basis it's a total myth. You'll see that the article Times says that Tebily was at Chateauroux when Drogba was supposed to be living with him. In 1993, Tebily was 17 and in the youth team at Niort (some 400km from Drogba's Paris suburban club); he didn't join Chateauroux until five years later. Disappointingly, the Times journalist sourced his background stuff from the Wiki article which at the time did contain the "fact" that Drogba and Tebily are cousins, for which the only evidence appears to be that they share a surname. The reference I've cited to Drogba's official site says he lived with "his cousin Kriza" the year before he rejoined his parents in Antony in 1993; the Levallois club which Drogba joined is the local professional club to Antony, only a few miles away. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kaypoh does like his cite counting doesn't he. I will help out if needed, though I am off on holiday skiing in a couple of days. Will see what I can do, though I am struggling to actually work out what is wrong with it. Woody (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rapid deletion
I did an article about the Hotel Belvedere du Rayon Vert (a marvellous art deco building in France) having already put it in the page of the town (Cerbere), and added it to the Art Deco page's list of art deco buildings in Europe. Some mad keenite (Chris Kreider) deleted it instantly as blatant advertising - for a hotel that's been shut over 20 years! Said it wasn't sourced. He didn't give me time to add any links.
Is this the norm now on wikipedia because I've had to defend my last new entry (Omega Development Site)? Frankly I can't be arsed doing it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloovee (talk • contribs) 21:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roy Cheetham, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Oldmanchestercitylogo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Oldmanchestercitylogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Greetings! A few days ago I created the article "International football results" and 2 or 3 days later I received a proposed deletion from this article in 5 days from you. A user told me that I could create this article as long as there wasn´t an article with this information. You told me I must improve the page if I didn´t want this page to be deleted. What do you propose I do? I promised I would update this article every single day.Qampunen (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.
But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.
I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.
But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.
Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version.
Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.
I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.
Larry Pieniazek
NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "K"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "L"s through "O"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c00:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year to all our Greater Manchester Wikipedians! The project now has 34 members. 5 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. On behalf of the team I hope they have prosperous and enjoyable usership and wish them well with their forthcoming work!
User:Archtransit and User:Rudget, both part of our team, are current candidates for adminship (see here for Archtransit and here for Rudget). We wish them luck with this persuit and hope they will become our latest project participants with admin status!
Simillarly, the Portal:North West England is now officially a featured portal. User:Rudget has been overwhelmingly involved with this portal and he too is hereby thanked on behalf of the project for his continued contributions to this page and many others.
There have been a number of debates this month, some of which with a high level of potential impact for the project and its members.
Article assessment for the project became a point of contention when around 1400 articles were tagged by a bot. Most of these artcles were on "minor" association football players. The consensus was that in our state of around 30 participants and as a predominatly geography based project, most of these articles should be untagged, at very least for the time being. Of our 1403 articles now tagged however, only (?) 85% are assessed - a drop of 15%!
Perhaps one of the most notable debates this month was the possibility of... scrapping the project newsletter! User:Rudget has written the last three editions (that's all of them!) and has decided that he'd like to pass on the responsibility. It has been proposed that a noticeboard system be introduced to highlight new issues in a near(!)-realtime fashion. I User:Jza84 am writing what could now be the last GM newsletter for a while. If you're a member of the team, but aren't closely involved with the project, then we'd love to hear from you at WT:GM with your views on which system of communication is the right way forwards (if any/both!).
Monthly Challenges
As was stated in last months newsletter, the Greater Manchester remains a key article for the project, and one which has been identified as urgent in our quest for Featured Article status. Sadly, for all our other successes, Greater Manchester has changed little since this time last year] (!) and is still an article requiring expansion and development. The new WP:UKCOUNTIES guide may provide new ways in which to channel our efforts. Although we endevour to have good article status even for our suburbs and hamlets, other articles specifically identified as needing development towards FA include Salford, Stretford and Altrincham.
Many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Rochdale, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard - much lower than we should have. If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these.
One final challenge for this month is for all those with new digial cameras for Christmas, or even digial images stored away on a disc!... many of our place articles are still without a single photograph, and www.geograph.org.uk is running low on quality images. Even those with photographs often have a low quality photograph of the local church. MORE ARE NEEDED! Especially townscapes! If you think you can help, a barnstar is up for grabs for best picture added in the next month or so!
We're always looking for potential new project members and ways for greater communication, collaboration and participation. WP:GM has a strong core of users, but would like to have more input from a wider user-base. If you can think of ways to improve our ways of working, please feel free to mention them at WT:GM. Simillarly, if you notice a new or unapproached user who is producing sound work related to Greater Manchester and its consituent parts, please don't forget to ask them if they'd like to join us, either in your own hand, or by adding {{Welcome WPGM}} to their talk page.
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!
According to www.allfootballers.com, the Bill Harper who played for Manchester City in 1923-24, was born on 15 November 1900. He also played for Sunderland (28 games, 1921-1923), Crystal Palace (57 games, 1924-1926) & Luton Town (31 games, 1926-27). --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any and all help would be greatly appreciated, either in the form of peer review or in direct edits. I am still learning my way around wikipedia and what constitues what. I have no ownership issues, just want to add value, so no stepping on toes problems there. Pbradbury (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help with this, I have left some questions/comments on Nery's talk page regarding most of the outstanding items on your list of peer review type comments, I would value your input. Thanks again Pbradbury (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leeds PR/MCFC seasons
Humblest apologies, your honour; when writing quickly, what I put and what I mean are often not the same thing, gets me into all sorts of trouble ;-) Though I did follow MCFC seasons in including the one wartime BCFC season when we won something for which complete and understandable source material was available and will probably add the rest if/when I can make sense of which games went in which competition. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In his userpage, the Commons user who uploaded it claims to be "a professional photographer involved in cycling and football games". I noticed the photo as well, but I did not tag it since I noted it was uploaded with a notably high resolution (over 1000 pixel by width), so it's likely to be his own work. --Angelo (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Oldelpaso, saw your PR request, I've added some comments. Perhaps you'd return the favour should you see fit and have the time and check out Portman Road. It's currently at FAC looking all lonely and unloved for the past day or so. Anything you see that's missing or whatever, let me know. All the best... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, found your email languishing in my junk (thanks hotmail!) today, I'll respond later. In the meantime, fancy getting your hands dirty at List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records? I'd really really like to get it into a state where it could be considered for featured status. It's a tough one because it'd be a precedent for this type of thing (as far as I know) but I'm prepared to do the work... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have an issue with an anonymous user regarding the deletion proposals of two article: Aoife Hoey (bobsleigh) and Siobhán Hoey. This user has proposed nomination for deletion on this article three times for notability. From my perspective on the rules for WP:BIO regarding athletes, it fits because Aoife competed in the FIBT World Championships which is the highest level you can compete in other than the Winter Olympics. Because of the notability, several items within Aoife's article were removed by this anonymous user to further this deletion. Also on Siobhán's article, her article was nominated back last March, but was voted to keep. The anonymous user is trying a second attempt at her. I am trying to avoid this escalating into something I don't want to. Chris (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the past histories of the article, especially with the AfD for Siobhán, you will see some of the User IPs labels as single purpose accounts. The WHOIS states that they are all from Ireland. Chris (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I hadn't time to write the article itself, by now I just had time to search for information! :) Can you wait a week or two? Jhony21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Oldelpaso, thanks for your comment. I'm not that tempted about transfer fees since unless you get access to the club financial records, all "reported" transfer fees are very dubious. For example ITFC bought David Norris a couple of days ago. ITFC said it was for an "undisclosed fee", BBC said £2m, Sky said £1.5m, and then dealing with add-ons, like appearance bonus, international bonus etc, it's a minefield really. I was almost tempted to axe the whole section because sourcing it is dodgy at best! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you contributed to the discussion about football notability criteria in November, so you will be delighted/appalled that I have restarted the discussion here. Please give your opinion so that we can move towards formalising the criteria. Regards, King of the NorthEast15:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everton FC players
Well you put in the ground work. I had been contemplating doing the player list to fit with the rest but it looked difficult and I did not know where to start plus I had been spending my time creating Everton F.C. seasons and adding the whole match list for the Merseyside derby. Great work by the way, I really appreciate it - even if you are a Manc ;) Good luck at weekend, I'm afraid you'll need it! Xenomorph1984 (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A review would be good thankyou. I am away from my books at the moment so can't really respond. If my memory serves me correctly, he was asked to leave by resignation. As I say, won't have sources until tommorrow so we will see what mine say and what yours say... Thanks. Woody (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the Villa history says he retired. My Dean Hayes book says "He suffered a stroke due to overwork and had to retire." The Ward/Griffin book talks about it in two places: "...and in 1964 he left the club." (in his manager profile). In the text it states "In July 1964 he resigned on grouns of ill health." The pretext to that statement though, is that he was under a lot of fan pressure. So I have shown you mine... ;) Woody (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Oldelpaso, thanks a lot for the barnstar, it is very much appreciated.
On a somewhat related note, I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at the recent history article when you have the time. Any problems will need to go on the talk page as the FAC has been archived. Peanut is waiting for your comments before he gets off his fence for the next one ;) Thanks. Woody (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remembered I was unsure of something at the time. I'd mentioned on his talk page that there's a chance I might have confused him with Matthew Barrass, who's listed as Barras, M in Calley's book. I'm assuming, from his date of birth, that Malcolm never played for City either. Besides, there's no mention of them in his external links. - Dudesleeper | Talk13:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Oldelpaso, hope you're well. Thanks for both the barnstar (been a while since I got one of those bad boys!) and the comments on discretionary plurals. You may have noticed that after about the third section it all goes into English (i.e. the club were etc) while up to that point it's a poor mix. I've done my best this afternoon to iron out the inconsistencies, would you be good enough to have a look for me, change any I may have missed (I'm beginning to hate that article!) and comment at the FAC for me? If you're too busy, not a problem. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spoke too soon, the plural vs singular vs Ipswich vs their vs its vs were vs was competition has been noted at the FAC. Oh well... my energy levels are too low for this right now! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No harm in pile-on support should you consider it reasonable - perhaps I could secure FT in six hours!!! Yeah, as for the England manager article I'd love for more help. It started as a copy of the City managers article but blew up a bit. It'll now make a decent FA in due course I'm sure, and anything you could bring about Sven would be top notch. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I can't fault him for effort but he's a very, very bad striker. Not got a bad first touch, but the QE2 has a smaller turning circle, and I also think the QE2 has scored more goals! For some reason he has cult status at City - I wish we'd support our good players with the same gusto, though that probably says something for his total effort. Peanut4 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. His only goal from open play was one of the worst hit shots I've seen but was celebrated as though we'd won the league. Peanut4 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the January newsletter there has been an increase of 5 featured articles/lists, taking our total number of featured entries upto 16 17 (Trafford passed today!).
Although WP:GM leads the way in terms of featured content by a local British project, the Kent and Yorkshire WikiProjects are close to this total, with 11 and 14 featured entries respectively.
Following a somewhat frenzied collaboration at the start of March, and a nomination by User:Joshii, Greater Manchester was promoted to GA status. It's the first metropolitan county to obtain this recognition.
There has otherwise been a reduction in WP:GM nominations for GA status, something which the project has begun to discuss on the talk page.
Having completed all but one of our short term aims set last December, the project would like to look at developing new short term aims. Suggestions have been made here, but there is scope for flexibility. Do you have a entry you would like to see developed?
Two members have left the project however, each for rather different reasons:
Archtransit (talk·contribs) was an administrator, and project member, who was found to have been abusing his editting and sysop privliges. Following investigation, Archtransit was banned indefinately. A report in The Signpost is found here.
Rudget (talk·contribs), also an administrator, decided to leave the project. Reasons mentioned included the demands of admin duties taking over too much time. Rudget helped towards Didsbury's GA promotion, and Portal:North West England's FP promotion.
Thanks
This WikiProject, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
WP:GM is a great project, and is leading the way for local WikiProjects of the UK. However, though the project talk page is a hub of activity, it is regularly used by only a core of 5-6 editors, which isn't making the most of its potential. Indeed, a study, by the University of Minnesota found that "One-tenth of 1 percent of editors account for nearly half of Wikipedia's content value". We at WP:GM do not want to follow suit!
There are several editors who have, sadly, not editted since the turn of 2008, and others, which concentrate in areas other than Greater Manchester material (which is quite fine!).
The WikiProject Greater Manchester would like to know if YOU are still around, and if so, if you've like to be more involved, and, if not, why not and what can we do to get you involved and be a bigger part of the team?
Feel free to come by the project talk page and leave us a message on what you're working on and/or what you'd like to see improved. The project is only as strong as its members and we'd like to know if you're still active or if we can help you with your editting.
Images
A picture's worth a thousand words
In our last issue, a plea was made for more images to be submitted to Wikipedia/WikiCommons to improve the quality and context of our articles. Many of our Top priority articles are still lacking in quality images, if any!
www.geograph.org.uk is an online resource of photographs of places in the UK, which we can use. Www.flickr.com also has some images we are permitted to use. Do you have a digital camera however? Can you take photographs of townscapes and landmarks in your local area that can be used here? Middleton, Hulme and Rochdale all have examples of images in their lead that help give a sense of place and improve the context to our readers.
Simillarly, many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Stockport, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard with short lead sections and unreferenced sections - a much lower standard than we should allow! If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these. There is a list of resources that can help.
The review of this (currently at FLC) has kind of stalled. Any chance you could cast your eyes over it and let me know what you think? All the best (and Happy Easter!) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just read that you scraped through the first round of that season's competition by virtue of the fact that you were 2-1 ahead against Blackpool when the game was abandoned after 50 minutes due to fog. The chances of that happening today are nil. Jammy bastuds! - Dudesleeper / Talk17:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I misread the note under the game in my book. It says * After a game abandoned after 50 minutes because of fog. I somehow ignored the After a part. At least you progressed via a replay, rather than from the initial game, which is what I thought. - Dudesleeper / Talk14:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oxford United Peer Review
Thank you for the suggestions on improving the article. I have made a few changes and was wondering to have another glance at it to see if your suggestions have been met. Thanks Eddie6705 (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peterloo Massacre was nominated for FAC on 6 April. So far it has received support for FAS but feel free join the discussion here.
The reduction of WP:GM GAs, mentioned in the last issue, has been tackled with Buckton Castle and Oasis (band) being passed on 9 March and Upper Brook Street Chapel, Manchester on 7 April. We now have 13 GAs due to hard work of our contributors. Well done!
WP:GM still is still the leading local British WikiProject. As far as featured content goes, we have a lead of 6 on London and Yorkshire who have 15 FAs each. Although taking the lead in FAs, WP:GM is still lacking GAs and falls behind London by 6. This topic was at the front of the new aims discussion (here) and is an important issue for WP:GM.
As mentioned above, new aims have been decided. See the right hand column for more details.
Member News
There are now 44 members of WikiProject Greater Manchester! A warm welcome to the 5 new members that have joined us since March:
Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome!
New Aims
The completion of all but one of the short term aims set last December resulted in a discussion on WT:GM to set new aims for the WikiProject. They are:
Obtain GA status for a third of Greater Manchester's Metropolitan Boroughs.
It took us four months to get our last aims completed, why not try and see if these can be done in less time than before! All input is welcome but if anyone has any books or photos etc specifically related to these topics, they would be extra-specially welcome.
But before rushing ahead with these new aims, let's not forget the one that got away last time: to obtain B -> GA status for Rochdale, Wigan, Bury, Bolton and Stockport. Most of these articles are in poor condition and in need of repair. Good quality images are urgently needed also. Let's make sure that this aim doesn't stay off our radar much longer.
Don't Forget...
Images! The shortage of good images was mentioned in the last issue and still hasn't been resolved! A good place to start would be the requested photographs category but please remember that there are many articles not within this category that have the same need in common.
Assessment "Assess and review all relevant articles for quality, importance and progress" is one of our mid-term aims. At the present moment, there are only 43 unassessed articles. This task could be completed well before the next newsletter is out.
I've made some changes and added some answers. Feel free to fire any more my way. And don't worry about changing the text. If anything needs slightly amending, I'll let you know. Peanut4 (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
