Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oldham

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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Oldham

I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because, having some experience in obtaining FA for other settlements, I believe this one is up there with the best. It's not gone through the GA process because, as pointed out by another user, there is little to be gained by it (by which I mean for this article specifically! - not GAC itself!), and I've been assured that it not uncommon for articles to go straight to FA. If this upsets reviewers I apologise, but I hope they agree that this article flys through GA anyway.

A point of communication for reviewers. That "Oldham is in Greater Manchester" has a reference is there to assert verifiability for the benefit of a former distruptive editor with an unusual view of British geography; his various accounts banned (not blocked) about 6 times last year. The article is totally stable now however. Furthermore, as a UK settlement, this article is WP:UKCITIES compliant.

Other than that, all I can say is enjoy reading about my town! It may be ugly, but it's home! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:
- 80 KiB. This article seriously needs more subpages. The TOC is also extremely lengthy.
  The article has 39KB prose, well within WP:SIZE guidelines of 30 to 50KB readable prose. The TOC looks fine, where do you see problems? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur; there are comparable geography/place class artices at FA with much more prose and lengthier contents. It is also inline with the relevant MOS on article size. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This system came to an end however on 3 August 1946.—Awkward.
  - Done, copyeditted. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second paragraph of the sports section needs sources.
  - Done, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oldham Athletic have had considerable success—Singular.
  - Done -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The town has a notable theatrical culture.—POV.
  - Done, rephrased and sourced, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all I have for now. O₂ (息 • 吹) 00:40, 11 November 2007 (GMT)

Comment, per the instructions at both WP:FAC and WP:PR, please archive and close the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does one close the peer review? I realise its old and gone stale, but I understood that a bot had to close it? -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference no. 31 is a dead link. Also the link where you sourced your data from in the demography template is not working. Both the links are from 'visionofbritain.org.uk' website. DSachan 01:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Could you please re-check this. Both appear to be functioning fine to me. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, they are working fine now, I guess there was some problem with the website at that time. DSachan 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is looking good, however, I was slightly confused by the comment in the lead that "with little early history to speak of" followed by a paragraph about the history from neolithic, roman and anglo-saxon times" I would say they provided significant history. I also found the sentence "Unmentioned in the Domesday Book, Oldham during the Middle Ages, from the time of its founding in the 9th century through to the Industrial Revolution, is believed to been nothing but a mere scattering of small and insignificant settlements spread across the moorland and dirt tracks which linked Manchester to York." complex and I had to read it 3 times.— Rod ^talk 17:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that sentence might be a little ambitious!.... As for the early history, it is the absolute sum- there is nothing else in the published realm about pre-industrial Oldham! There have been no castles, no battles, no great disasters, or cathedrals, nor any plots or visits by the monarch. The sentence itself appears, almost word-for-word in A Centenery History of Oldham, one of the major sources for the article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a few refs for listed buildings but in the education section the article talks about Blue Coat School, but the reference I found "Henshaw's Bluecoat School". Images of England. Retrieved 2007-11-14. uses a different title & uses Blue Coat as one word - can you confirm which is correct?— Rod ^talk 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the additional reference material. The official school website [1] and Ofsted [2] use The Blue Coat School. As such, I'd stick with using it! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support not so bad --Mini@ 21:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very balanced and well structured article with great sources. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 22:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well sourced article that has a good compliance with all criteria. Anything wrong with the article could be easily fixed without compromising the article. Rudget _zŋ 11:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well written and sourced article with the required coverage. Kbthompson (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - comprehensive & well supported.— Rod ^talk 09:58, 18 November 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.