Wikipedia:Featured article review/Oldham/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC) [1].

Oldham[edit]

Notified: Jza84, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject England, WikiProject Greater Manchester, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, WikiProject UK geography, 2018-09-30, 2021-06-11

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because concerns were raised in 2018, which I do not think were resolved. Concerns included that the information was not updated and short paragraphs added after the FAC. I am also concerned with unsourced statements (including a paragraph in the Economy section) and the possible inclusion of non-notable information. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For info, it was promoted to FA on 18 Nov 2007 in this version. PamD 12:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since then it has grown from 41kB prose with 13kB of references, to 49kB prose with 22kB of refs. PamD 12:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And page statistics show that almost half the total edits were done by Jza84, who appears not to have edited since 2015. PamD 12:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PamD are you interested in bringing this back to FA standards? If so, please ping me when it is ready for another review. Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience of FA or FAR, so probably couldn't do it unless other editors were willing to help. What's the procedure from this point? I've addressed some unsourced paras on sport though not that big one about football in the economics section. Are there other specific points which need addressing? (Beyond the Demography section which clearly needs work.) PamD 19:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Forgot to ping. PamD 19:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I am not a FAR co-ordinator, so please correct me if I get this wrong. At this point in the process, reviewers highlight their concerns with the article. Hopefully, editors will fix the concerns and bring the article back to FA standards. If you are willing to fix the article, I am willing to review it by posting questions or comments either here or on the article's talk page. After a quick skim of the article, I notice that the history section does not have post-2002 events, that paragraph in the economy section needs citations (or to be removed) and the "Notable people" sections needs more citations or for the references to be placed at the end of the sentence if it verifies the information. There are still short paragraphs throughout the article that I think can be better integrated into its previous or subsequent prose. Once the above is complete I will conduct a more thorough review. I also noticed some WP:PROMO language in my skim, which I can highlight further (or fix) in an in-depth review later. Z1720 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: are you still working on improving this article? Z1720 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've done quite a bit but will leave the rest to others. PamD 23:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC: PamD did some excellent work on the article, but uncited text still remains and they are not continuing improvements, per above. Minimal edits to the article since mid-July. Z1720 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Tagged as needing additional references. Repetition and over-focus on current MPs in the 'Parliamentary representation' section. Single sentence 'Politics' section: short sections should be merged or expanded. Short, stubby paragraphs in 'Economy' and 'Sports' sections. Unsourced content in 'Notable people' section. DrKay (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - aside from issues mentioned above, the sections for economy and transportation look to contain some dated material. Also, I'm having some questions about the structure here. Why is Oldham Athletic given a paragraph in the economy section, rather than the sport one? This needs some further work. Hog Farm _Talk 00:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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