Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cheadle Hulme railway station/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 16:50, 30 June 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Majorly talk 17:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This is a fairly short article, but it is as comprehensive as I can reasonably get it. It's currently a good article and has had a detailed peer review. Thanks for your comments. Majorly talk 17:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's as good as one can get on the topic; support. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on first skim-by (I'll do a fuller readthrough when I get the chance): a Virgin Trains press release is used as a source for material on the general early history of the station, rather than about Virgin Trains themselves (currently ref #1), and I wouldn't consider them particularly reliable in this context (they've no reason to really care about the exact details of what happened 150 years before they were even founded). There will be reliable sources about for the material for which you're using this press release (a, b, c for example). – iridescent 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add some better sources. Majorly talk 19:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you switch the "cite XX" templates to {{citation}} for format consistency? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I prefer using the specific templates; for some reason, the bibliography was changed to the citation template (which I never use), so I changed it back. If there's a requirement for the citation template to be used, I'll be happy to switch them all over. Majorly talk 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: just letting you know I haven't forgotten this (been rather busy), and I'll hopefully fix these issues by tomorrow. Majorly talk 23:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- Concur with Iri on the press release issue. Better to find a history source for that information.
- What makes http://www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/ a reliable source of information?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, I'd agree aboutmyarea is not a reliable source of information. However, in this case, they are simply reproducing minutes from meetings, that were on the partnership site. Unfortunately the government site seems to remove old meeting minutes, and they are not on archive.org. There are some minutes on there from more recently, that have been used as sources. Majorly talk 14:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Majorly on this one. Probably the "by-the-book" solution here would be to remove the links altogether and cite the minutes as if they were print sources, but that would reduce the usefulness to the reader, just to satisfy strict-compliance. – iridescent 14:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm considering withdrawing this FAC to be honest - with plans for major renovations on the go, it'll soon be out of date and anything added to it would not reflect any FA status this article may get. In short, I don't think it's stable enough for FA at the moment. Majorly talk 14:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Majorly on this one. Probably the "by-the-book" solution here would be to remove the links altogether and cite the minutes as if they were print sources, but that would reduce the usefulness to the reader, just to satisfy strict-compliance. – iridescent 14:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, I'd agree aboutmyarea is not a reliable source of information. However, in this case, they are simply reproducing minutes from meetings, that were on the partnership site. Unfortunately the government site seems to remove old meeting minutes, and they are not on archive.org. There are some minutes on there from more recently, that have been used as sources. Majorly talk 14:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone familiar please withdraw this - too many issues for me to work on right now, and the issue of stability concerns me. Thanks, Majorly talk 14:28, 29 June 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.