Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chadderton/archive1

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 not promoted by Karanacs 17:11, 6 October 2009 [1].

Chadderton edit

Nominator(s): --Jza84 | Talk 10:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review/Chadderton/archive1

Hello all. I am nominating this for featured article because I'm confident this article passes the FA criteria (or at least will by way of addressing any of your concerns here). I've taken simillar articles through the FA process before, and of course, Chadderton has also been through the GA process, successfully. Thanking you in advance, --Jza84 | Talk 10:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noticed that the Harvnb template for ref 31 isn't working. Mm40 (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It works fine for me. What problem are you seeing? --Malleus Fatuorum 12:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he means the one that's currently ref32 - it links to "Sellers 1991", but there's no book by that name in the bibliography. – iride scent 14:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. I'm not sure where it came from to be honest. There's three other references in there to back up that particular area, so all's good still I think. --Jza84 | Talk 17:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
~~Seven deadlinks with the link checker tool.~~
- I've got most of them with this diff. I'll try to get the outstanding ones asap. --Jza84 | Talk 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I got em all. There are now no deadlinks. --Jza84 | Talk 01:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.~~
- I changed them all to Citation. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the following reliable sources?
- ~~http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Documents/bishops_of_chester.htm (hint, it's not... you'll want http://british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=35844 instead. And format it as a book, not a website)~~
  - Done, per this diff. --Jza84 | Talk 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/lancs_ob.html~~
  - I've seen this site used a few times. Its used (partly) on Radcliffe, Greater Manchester, for the coat of arms image. On the several occasions I've come across it, the coats of arms it contains has been correct - and for the Radcliffe article, that coat of arms hasn't been used for many years - it certainly isn't a site that trawls the internet for its imagery. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've replaced it. It is no longer used as a source. --Jza84 | Talk 01:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~http://www.bus-enthusiast.com/independents.html~~
  - That appears to be a lapsed site. I can't comment on the content so I'll leave it to the main editors. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have replaced it with a source from the Museum of Transport in Manchester with this diff. --Jza84 | Talk 17:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~http://www.givemefootball.com/player-profiles/david-platt~~
  - That appears to be the official site of the PFA - I think they're probably quite reliable. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gods, you expect this yank to keep up with all the various varieties of soccer site? (grins)... gods help me.... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Be consistent with your p. and pp.'s... p. is for ONE page, pp. is for a range of pages, right now you've got them jumbled.~~
- Fixed all the instances I could find. Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "Almost every suburb of Chadderton is served by a primary school, some of which have religious affiliations." has a reference of "See the article entitled List of schools in Oldham." which is not a reliable source.
- Removed, per this diff. --Jza84 | Talk 23:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done now; thanks. Most images need alt text as per WP:ALT; please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review subpage. In the existing alt text, the word "M60" cannot be verified by a non-expert merely by looking at the image, and needs to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Also, the map's alt text doesn't convey the gist of the map; please see WP:ALT#Maps for advice. Eubulides (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I sorted the alt text for the map with this diff. --Jza84 | Talk 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, thanks, that's the right syntax (or it will be once my request to add alt text support to the template is acted on). I'd remove the "left" and "bottom" from that alt text entry, for WP:ALT#Brevity. Also, the map's inset shows where Greater Manchester is, and it'd help to summarize that too, as most Wikipedia readers won't know that. (More, please!) Eubulides (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've made more progress, but still have a few more to do. It's an incredibly demanding requirement! Rather than just paraphrasing a source, one actually has to think! I imagine myself or members of WP:GM will ensure the last few are completed. --Jza84 | Talk 00:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I got them all. It's my first blast at alt text, so feel free to point out the flaws if needbe. --Jza84 | Talk 02:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks, that was a wonderful job. Just for next time, alt text doesn't have to be quite so elaborate (see WP:ALT#Brevity), and you can save yourself quite a bit of work by making it half or a third as long as that. I trimmed it a bit and fixed some minor problems. ~~There's only one problem left: the lead image in the infobox still needs alt text. Please put it in the |static_image_alt= blank that I left for you in my patch.~~ Eubulides (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Because of the way infobox UK place is set up, the patch isn't necessary and alt text can be added the same way as any other image, like here. Nev1 (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, either syntax is fine, so long as somebody adds alt text to that lead image one way or another. Eubulides (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Done with this diff. That's all the images with alt text now. --Jza84 | Talk 20:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It all looks great now. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image check:
- How does File:Magnet Mill, Chadderton 0015.png meet WP:NFCC#8? Why do readers need to see the mill to understand an article about the town in which the mill stood?
  - I've reluctantly removed it with this diff; policy dictates I guess. --Jza84 | Talk 18:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Chadderton Urban District Council - coat of arms.png has an invalid license; it's derived from images with GFDL-with-disclaimers, a CC-BY-SA-3.0, and a CC-BY-SA-2.5 licenses. Also, it says it's sourced to [2] but is also self-made. These various contradictions need to be worked out, or the image removed.
  - I'm confident the licencing can be worked out. I made the image using free-to-use derived images already at commons. [3] isn't so much a source, but just there to verify the composition as correct. Can you advise what would be best? --Jza84 | Talk 20:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other images seem fine. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~There are eleven occurrences of "Chadderton" in the lead alone, many others throoughout. Can some of these be lost or glossed?~~
- Historically a part of Lancashire would be more in context at the end of the opening sentence of the article
- ~~Were the mansions actually ancient in the Middle Ages as stated, or are they ancient now?~~
- nationally by way, why not nationally and a comma?
- latter of whom - last of whom?
- marked by its landscape of surviving red-brick cotton mills lose surviving? couldn't really have a landscape of non-existent mills
- ~~link listed building perhaps?~~
- once marched along it, why the comma?
- Cockersand Abbey surely an religious institution, not an order?
- John Ashton and Thomas Buckley of Cowhill and Baretrees respectively better as John Ashton of Cowhill and Thomas Buckley of Baretrees
- minor fixes
  - Reply: I got virtually all of these with this diff. The only two I didn't get are the first one (Historically part of Lancashire), this is owing to complicated arrangements of neutrality per WP:UCC, while the sixth point (about linking listed buildings) I think is a mistake as the term is already linked in the lead. --Jza84 | Talk 12:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cowhill has become Cownhill? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done, sorry a typo. Cowhill is the correct spelling. --Jza84 | Talk 23:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For consistency, I've changed the full Day Month Year dates in this article's refs to ISO style, which was more common here. Check that that's the date format you prefer. --an odd name 20:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, thats both fine and much appreciated. --Jza84 | Talk 20:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.