Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Runcorn/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 01:11, 7 July 2007.

Runcorn[edit]

Self-nom. This article has been assessed as a GA and since has been peer reviewed. Changes have been made in line with the comments made in the review. I hope it is now near FA status. Peter I. Vardy 10:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment *chuckles* Now, wouldn't that be funny if we saw this on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article. :-P Nishkid64 (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the coat-of-arms image is fair use and (1) provides no fair-use rationale, and (2) is not discussed (ie no critical commentary) within the text of the article. Non-free images cannot be used for decoration. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coat-of-arms deleted. This was added before I started editing the article and I had not checked its copyright status. Sorry. Peter I. Vardy 16:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article looks pretty good, but I have two main concerns. As ESkog mentioned, the coat of arms image does not provide a fair use rationale, which means it fails one of the WP:FACR. Also, there seems to be a number of entire paragraphs that go unsourced. Please add sources for these sections (examples: Paragraph 2 of Economy, Demographics, paragraph in lead about New town). I think the sourcing issue can easily be fixed, and so can the coat of arms image problem. Also, I'm just wondering, but why exactly did you write "New town" as "New Town" throughout the article? It's not a formal location, so I'm a bit confused as to why the capitalization for "town" was applied. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More citations added where possible. There have been no separate demographics produced for Runcorn since it became part of the unitary authority of Halton in 1998 so the Demographics section is really a link to the part of the Halton article which is fully referenced. Otherwise the least-referenced section is the part of the Landmarks and places of interest. I have included memorials and public sculpture because that is recommended in the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements but I cannot find any references to them; what is written is the result of my personal observations. This part can always be deleted if that is the best option. Your comments on capitalization are valid. As there has been little integation between the old and new parts of the town they are locally often referred to as "Old Town" and "New Town" as though they are separate entities which, of course, they are not. It is useful to have an outsider, particularly from another country to let us see things through new eyes. I have removed the capitalization and amended the text where this has been necessary. Peter I. Vardy 11:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. This is a reasonably good article. However, I see a few problems. Firstly, some of the prose is quite strange; I think it could really do with getting someone to give it a run through and do some copyediting. Secondly, I find the order of the sections quite strange - is there any reason "geography" and "government" went before "history"? Thirdly, some of the sections are very light; while the content of "demographics" may be similar to the borough article, it warrants at least some mention in this one, and "economy" also seems peculiarly light on detail. "Government" is also not quite as good as some other city FAs, and "Education" is a very short section for an FA. I think this article is most of the way there, but it really needs some more work to get it up to FA standard. It might be an idea to look at some of the existing FA articles on cities and towns as something of a guide. Rebecca 04:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for these comments. The ordering of sections is based on Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements but I agree this is unsatisfactory and I shall be discussing it on the project's talk page. The Demographics section caused difficulties at the peer review stage and I think the better solution might be to copy it from the Halton (borough) article with an explanation that it applies not just to Runcorn but to the whole of the unitary authority. I will have a go at expanding the Economy (here I may have similar problems to Demographics), the Government and the Education sections. When this is done I will ask for copyediting. In respect of this could you please give me some examples of "quite strange" prose and I will then know where attention needs to be given. Peter I. Vardy 17:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sections referred to above have been expanded and the whole article has been reordered according to the recent revision of WP:UKCITIES. Some copyediting has been done and various other tweaks have been made. Peter I. Vardy 11:41, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Runcorn/archive1&oldid=192536664"