Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shaw and Crompton

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:08, 30 July 2007.

Shaw and Crompton edit

I think this city article passes the FA criteria. Epbr123 09:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional sSupport User:Jhamez84 and User:Peteb16 have put in a lot of work on this page and should be congratulated for their achievement. However, some of the paragraphs are very short and some of the phrasing is a little strange. There should be at least one citation per paragraph, in my opinion. I recommend that they continue to work on the article and bring it back here when they're ready. DrKiernan 11:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The short paragraphs have been fixed and some more citations have been provided. Could you please give some examples of where the phrasing could be improved. Thanks. Epbr123 21:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, some specific pointers would be really appreciated. And thank you for the kind words of support also. Jhamez84 02:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::The new paragraph structure is great. In terms of phrasing, I'm particularly thinking of:

  1. the paragraph beginning "The River Beal"
  2. the sentence starting "Like Oldham, from which"
  3. "acts as a consultee" - "is consulted"?"
  4. "sitting of a small chapel" - "siting"? This phrase (But not, I appreciate, the information) is repeated in the next sentence: "the site of a small chapel".
  5. "archeologists", check spelling.
  6. "Whilst in 1076," can we drop the whilst? I know it's widely used (I used to use it very often myself) but its use is deprecated by other editors as an archaism.
  7. "the Norman conquest forces"
  8. "saw it fit", can we drop the it?
  9. "public woods" or wood?
  10. "than any other town in the world." and "any other place in the world." Repetition.
  11. "capsual", check spelling
  12. "in-between" can we drop the in?
  13. "It then lists eight names" This is my personal view, but I would prefer that we remember them as men not names.
  14. " after redevelopment of the junction to a large roundabout" - "after the junction was redeveloped as a large roundabout"
  15. "sortation" - "sorting"?
  16. "a 1899 built public swimming pool" - "a swimming pool built in 1899"?
I really enjoyed reading it. I used to live in Royton. I'm supporting on the basis that you will continue to improve and watch the page. DrKiernan 07:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All those examples have been fixed. Epbr123 09:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • Structure: Why use a catch-all "Present day" section? The first two paragraphs would go well in the Geography section to describe its character. The sub-headings are standard sections for city articles. The "Future developments" section sounds like it should be in the Economy section.
    • Comprehensiveness: The Geography section is dominated by things that are around the town (mountains, other towns, a river which does run through it) but has little on describing the geopraghy of the town and nothing on the built environment. There is more weight given to individual war memorials than town layout, infrastructure, roads, etc. - a map would help in this respect. In the Civic history section, elaborate on what the civil parish does for the town (the intro sentence defines it as a civil parish but according to the body that only means they have planning permission.) In Demographics there is more to a demographic profile than the number of people and their ethnic background, expand on this (eg. average age, household size, etc.) Nothing available on crime or media?
    • Prose: "The parish council elects fourteen Councillors..." how many members are on the parish coucil and where do they elect Councillors to? "Shaw and Crompton has become a popular residential area of relative prosperity and a variety of housing types to suit families, couples, individuals and professionals." (advert language)
  • There is a lot of good stuff here, it just needs clearly communication and a more intuitive structure. --maclean 05:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Comment: The title "Geography and administration" was a compromise as the traditional counties folk opposed the use of contemporary human geography as "geography". I'd be more than happy to use the term Geography however.

The "Present day" section seems to work for these smaller settlements - if we remove it, we then have several smaller, but elevated sections, which I'm not sure would work on their own.
Are for the parish council, I'm not sure how that's been put in, it's worded wrong (the parish council is itself made up of the 14 councillors!). As for the advert language, well that's what the citation says so I'm reluctant to change this as it may be misappropriation and misinterpretation of the reference. Jza84 01:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: I believe I've addressed most of these issues. However, the trouble is, little material about the parish council and joking aside, this parish council does little beyond planning permission... I will see what I can gather for the "built environment", though again, it may be difficult to find suitable citation and source material. Jza84 01:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:In my view, all issues raised thusfar have been addressed. Demography and Built environment has been extended (with reference material of course), whilst the layout has been standardised to a FA CITY class level. Jza84 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this is the best "UK place" nom so far. The history section is the best I've seen in one of these, and the article manages to cover most of the details without becoming too disjointed. I think the war memorials are covered in a little too much detail, it's struggling a little to find "landmarks" and the big compass is annoying, but those are just personal preferences and not valid objections. I'll support if you can clear up the points listed below:
    • Gilbert de Notton was granted the estate from descendants of the Norman conquest. I've changed this to Norman conquerors but the meaning is unclear. Had the line died out? Should it be by descendants or as a descendant?
    • following the death of the last remaining family members, the site was sold and the manor was demolished in 1952 How many of those events happened in 1952?
      • Comment: Just this one to be honest. The family owned two large properties - Crompton House (which was given to the Church of England in 1926) and Crompton Hall (which was demolished in 1952). There was no wider demolision, in this town or elsewhere. Jza84 11:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously I wasn't clear. I meant how many of these three events (death of the last remaining family members, sale of the site, manor demolished) happened in 1952? The sentence structure can be changed to make it clear, but I couldn't copy edit it myself, as although the hall was clearly demolished in 1952, I wasn't able to work out if either of the other two events occurred that year. Yomanganitalk 23:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ahh, I understand now. Yes the family died in 1926, and Crompton Hall sat unoccupied for many years; I read somewhere that Crompton Urban District Council didn't want it demolished, but for legal reasons it was - that may explain the time difference. However I read that long before I joined Wikipedia, and I'm now unsure of the source. Jza84 23:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The legacy of the Cromptons is apparent in the area - how?
    • Shaw and Crompton owes much of its history to the Industrial Revolution, in particular to 19th century cotton spinning, which provided the area with rapid expansion, prosperity and economic growth. So much so, that by 1913, Shaw and Crompton had one-sixth of the spindles of the Oldham Parliamentary Borough. I don't find that the second sentence leads naturally from the first and the one-sixth of the spindles is a bit of an obtuse way of representing the dominance of the cotton industry.
    • However, events following World War I, and competition from abroad, led to a severe depression in the British cotton industry. I assume this should be World War II, as the article has already discussed the boom after World War I. If not some explanation is required.
    • Shaw and Crompton has since formed part of the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham ever since? or did it later form part of the borough (in which case a date would be nice).
    • The parish council comprises 14 locally elected members including three which also act as councillors to the wider Oldham local authority, and is consulted in planning processes which affect the area Who is consulted? The is suggests the parish council, but the sentence structure suggests it should be are and refer to the 3 councillors.
    • ...but does have a town crier - a purely ceremonial role? It would be good to mention that if so.
    • The unemployment figures differ between the text and the comparison box.
    • The store cost £15million to construct, and is the first of its kind in the United Kingdom to use environmentally friendly construction techniques - what is "its kind"? Supermarkets?
      I actually meant the "of its kind" needed changing in this sentence. It needs to be specific as it is making a claim to precedence. It is the first supermarket in the United Kingdom to use... or it is the first supermarket of over x thousand square feet in the United Kingdom to use... or whatever. Yomanganitalk 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • three cops of spun cotton cops could probably use a link or explanation
    • "Religious sites" is actually "Christian sites". Are there any sites for other religions?
      • Comment: there is a small mosque - I'm trying to find a reference. Jza84 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    • Are park names supposed to be in italics?
    • no immediate residents complained nor the police nor the local council’s child protection unit provided representations during the formal application period - doesn't make sense at all
    • However, a legally watertight argument from the applicant - this is dodgy. Legally watertight is always opinion; it would be better to explain the the argument.
    • The units of measurement need tightening up: there are some without metric conversions, some without imperial conversions, and use of square miles and acres.
Yomanganitalk 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic feedback. I've struck some comments I've fixed with this sig. I will work hard to fix the remaining issues asap. Jza84 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Compass Table was changed to a new one. the new one is almost ridiculously over-large, mainly because of a large graphic in the centre that is not really necessary. I've reverted it back to the old compass table which is compact and looks more neat. If one is obliged to use the new compass table, I'd sooner one was not used at all, but the information contained in it placed in the text instead.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support : I think this is a great article. Just one minor quibble "convenient position" in the economy section could be considered POV although the following sentances explain why it's position might be considered convenient for distribution. — Rod talk 08:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That's a fair point and one that I hope has now been addressed to your satisfaction. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose: Really good and informative article. There are, however, a few unreferenced parts:

    • the second paragraph of the "Big Lamp" section
    • the "Education" section
    • the "Religious sites" section
    • the "Community facilities" section--Carabinieri 20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've added sources to these sections. Does that address your concerns? Jza84 18:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of this sig, we have three impartial supports and no opposision. Jza84 11:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Shaw_and_Crompton&oldid=1085530242"