Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chadderton/archive2

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 by Karanacs 17:44, 2 February 2010 [1].

Chadderton

Nominator(s): --Jza84 | Talk 00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review/Chadderton/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I'm confident this article passes the FA criteria by way of being thorough, well referenced and of a befitting quality to feature on the main page. There was no opposition at its last FAC, but the article did lack some grace in terms of grammar, formatting as well as some of the most advanced/uber-new FA criteria (such as ALT text). Since the original nomination, Chadderton has gone through extensive copyeditting). Feedback welcome of course. --Jza84 | Talk 00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
- ~~Two deadlinks found with the FAC toolbox~~
  - Got em with this diff. --Jza84 | Talk 00:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (I noted HMSO, but there may be others. Yanks won't have the first clue what that is (well, most. I do, but I'm weird that way) Also URBED~~
  - Done with this diff. --Jza84 | Talk 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~What makes http://www.givemefootball.com/player-profiles/david-platt a reliable source?~~
  - It is "The Official Website of The Professional Footballers' Association", the world's oldest professional sportsman's association (more here). The factoid it is supporting is also stated by England's Football Association. Although they have the style and grace of Myspace, I'm confident these are as reliable as one can get. --Jza84 | Talk 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Minor comments addressed.

Prose: ~~Are the Asshetons the Assheton Baronets? If so, please add a link.~~
- Done. I didn't know we had that article. :) --Jza84 | Talk 22:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer the history section to be written in the past tense rather than using "ing" endings, but this is a minor point.
- ~~"correlated to supporting" is cumbersome; please try to find another way to phrase this.~~
  - I think this should be clearer. --Jza84 | Talk 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most areas are given in acres followed by hectares, but this is switched in the "Landmarks" section. Perhaps you should switch the imperial and metric units around in this section so that it matches the rest of the article.
  - Should be sorted with this diff. --Jza84 | Talk 22:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most -ise endings use the "s" form, but you have "Authorized" for the King James Bible. The "z" form is also used in British English, so perhaps you should consider using Oxford spelling throughout. Again, this is a minor point as both forms are correct.
  - Should be sorted with this diff. --Jza84 | Talk 22:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images: All licenses OK.
- On the alt text, I'm not sure that "On this map Chadderton is..." is useful. Three-quarters in from the western edge of what? The southern edge of what? I think the sentence can be cut without detriment.
  - I'm inclined to agree. I think this was the result of feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chadderton/archive1. It was close to the inception of Alt text. I don't think it adds value. May I assume there is no consensus to keep it? --Jza84 | Talk 22:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I think it should go. DrKiernan (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~You haven't changed the translation of the motto: I thought it had been agreed that this was wrong?~~
  - sorted per talk. --Jza84 | Talk 22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied that the article meets all the ~~other~~ criteria. ~~My main concern is the motto.~~ DrKiernan (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC) amended 13:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ ~~beginning a read through and prose massage now. I will jot queries below:~~ No dealbreakers outstanding. Comprehensive ++ and prose okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toponymic evidence... - is there a clearer way of saying this for the average lay reader? if it is too wordy, I'd settle for the bluelink provided but might be worth thinking about.

Hopefully this does the trick? --Jza84 | Talk 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do nicely sir. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The beginning of the Early history section is tricky, with a sentence on Britons, and then jumping into the Romans. I was wondering whether there was any other material about ancient Britons which could be added. I see the problem that further expanding of the name duplicates material in the etymology section above. Not sure if anything can be done here but just noting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try dig around, but thusfar, Wikipedia has the sum of all I've found about the Britons in Chadderton. I'll ask WP:GM if they have anything. --Jza84 | Talk 11:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foxdenton Hall was restored in 1965, after much controversy. - why? Any info on this?

Hopefully this is clearer. Not sure why I had left it so vauge. --Jza84 | Talk 11:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article contains invalid HTML, as per its W3C validator report. Can you please fix this? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm! This is a new one. I haven't come across this before. Is there a guideline that can interpret that page and explain what needs to be done? --Jza84 | Talk 11:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a help page now: I just wrote one. (Thanks for suggesting it.) Please see Help:Markup validation. If it doesn't explain things clearly enough, please let me know. Eubulides (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've read this before, and I thought I'd GAd it, but it appears that I only made two (of 904) edits. A nice article, and I'm happy to go with this one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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