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 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]

**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]

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]

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

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.