Talk:Federation of Stoke-on-Trent/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

A very interesting, well-referenced and comprehensive article. I've read it several times and checked citations.

At this point in time, I can see only one stumbling block" to the award of GA-status, and that is the WP:Lead. It (the lead) is intended to both introduce the article and summarise the main points.

The current summary of the main points is (in my oppinion): "Four main periods of activity exist: the early proposals made in the first half of the nineteenth century which resulted in greater co-operation between the Potteries towns over law and order; the County plan of 1888, which attempted to form the six towns into a county; the first federation attempt in 1900–1903, which started as a resurrection of the county plan and ended as a failed attempt at the formation of a county borough; and the final federation process between 1905 and 1910.[1]:252" I would suggest that it needs to be expanded by about 200 to 300%.

For instance, (these are just my suggestions of important points, other editors may have different views and that is OK - but the current lead is inadequate): the parliamentary borough of Stoke-upon-Trent to elect PMs; differing views on federation; possible control by Staffordshire County Council and two ferderal proposals.

At this point I'm putting the review "On Hold". I will award GA-status once I consider the WP:Lead to be compliant. Comments, suggestions, questions, etc, can be added below (in this subsection). This page (and the article) is on my watch list, so I will be aware of progress, etc. Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the primary author, thanks. I'll give the lead some thought over the next day or two. NtheP (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a go at summarizing the article in the introduction.--Echetus Xe 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EcXe. I've had another revision which I've added here for discussion rather than keep chopping and changing the article. NtheP (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

proposed lead

The Federation of Stoke-on-Trent is an unusual occurrence in the history of English local government in that it was the first occasion when several towns were amalgamated into one county borough; and until the latter part of the 20th century it was the only such occurrence. The history of the Federation starts in the early 19th century and ends with the formation of the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent in 1910.

The six towns of Burslem, Tunstall, Stoke-upon-Trent, Hanley, Fenton and Longton all have their own histories. There was relatively little interaction between the separate settlements until the 18th century, when the pottery industry began to rapidly expand. By the early 19th century early steps were made to ensure greater co-operation between the Potteries towns over the issue of law and order. It was not until the County plan of 1888 that attempts were made to form the six towns into one county borough. The plan arose after an Act of Parliament brought a restructure in the county system that would see the creation of the county of Staffordshire. Wishing to remain independent, the Potteries towns discussed uniting to form a separate county, the Staffordshire Potteries. When it became apparant that this would fail the proposal was revised to one of uniting the six towns into one county borough. The plan failed after Hanley corporation and Stoke corporation could not agree on the location of the administrative centre. Instead only the town of Hanley gained County Borough status due to it being the only town that met the criteria, principally population, for being a county borough.

The first federation attempt was made in 1900, which started as a resurrection of the county plan. In 1902 Hanley council led attempts at the formation of an expanded county borough, but financial considerations meant that Fenton pulled out of the proceedings, quickly followed by Burslem and Stoke, to leave the proposal lying dead in 1903. The second and final federation process took place between 1905 and 1910. This time the process was instigated by Longton town council and supported by Stoke and Hanley, but opposed by Fenton, Tunstall and Burslem. Again disagreement arose on the complex financial issues of rates, assets and loans. After the bill was passed in the House of Commons, the matter was still being debated in the House of Lords when the six towns announced that they had come to an agreement. Becoming law in December 1908, the act came into force on 31 March 1910. On 1 July 1925 the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent was granted city status.

The idea of Federation was never universally popular and throughout the period was marked with disagreements between boroughs and with heated debate in the town halls of the towns. Such intense was the debate within the Potteries that some of the events surrounding the final federation proposal were recorded in the Arnold Bennett novel - The Old Wives' Tale.

Yes I like this one. Either of these leads are sufficient for GA, so I'm closing the review and awarding GA. Pyrotec (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

This a comprehensive, well-referenced, and well-illustrated article who's only "failing" was a "thin" lead. This has now been addressed (two versions) so I'm happy to award the article GA-status. This article may have potential to get to WP:FAC (I know that some authors don't like that, and I can understand why), but a WP:PR could be beneficial. Congratulations on producing a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]