Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brownhills

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 20:06, 28 November 2007.

Brownhills[edit]

My normal area of operations is football articles, but my wife made me promise to work on the article on her hometown in exchange for spending so long on the computer! :-) So I've been hard at work on this for a while now, have put the article through peer review and successfully put it up for GA, but I now feel it's at FA level - what do you think.....?

Thanks, ChrisTheDude 12:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After a quick glance, it looks good but maybe the Famous people section should be renamed Notable people, as "famous" is a bit too subjective. Full dates in the footnotes also need linking. Could the history section be expanded? Epbr123 13:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Famous" people are now "notable" and (I think) all the dates in the footnotes have been linked. As for the history section, I will have another look through my books tonight and see if there's anything else that can be added/expanded -- ChrisTheDude 13:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've significantly expanded the history section, what do you think now (BTW all your copyediting is much appreciated!!!) ChrisTheDude 21:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Epbr123 12:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As the article’s GA and peer reviewer, I have no qualms in this being featured, and I’m sure Chris will do an excellent job in dealing with any issues that others may bring up. Cheers, — H ₂O — 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a couple of things - first, there's a typo in a date in one of the refs, which results in a redlink. Second, you might want to consider going for a right-left-right-left format with the images, rather than leaving them all on the right. You managed to get that many references on a town? Wow! I'm impressed. Carre 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, I've made the changes you mention..... ChrisTheDude 15:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick response, and now I'm slightly embarrassed since some of the new image locations look odd to me at my computer resolution (1024 x 768, Firefox browser), and it was my suggestion that caused you to move them in the first place! The miners postcard, in conjunction with the {{cquote}}, and the Brownhills Common/Brownhills bridge ones are the ones in question now, but in other resolutions may well be perfectly fine. I think I should leave this to your better judgement, and get me coat :) Carre 15:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it any better now.....? ChrisTheDude 15:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup – thumbs up from me on the images now. I haven't actually read the article properly yet, so can't give it a support or oppose, but you've addressed my comments perfectly. Carre 16:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I like this article very much, and it's one of the best FA noms for a UK settlement in a while! It's consise, direct and proffessional. I think it's close to the FA standard. However, I have a few suggestions, hailing mostly from the WP:UKCITIES standard, namely:

The infobox should have the distance and direction to London (add |london_distance= ) - see Shaw and Crompton or Chew Stoke as examples. Done
Geography and climate should be renamed Geography, as climate studies are a part of geography, and this approach is taken elsewhere in the UK. Done
Demographics should be renamed to Demography - the rationale is that it's poor grammar - the other sections would otherwise also be named geographics and economics. Done
The thumbnails shouldn't generally have their sizes set to a particular size. They should really have that tier of formatting removed. Done
I would personally prefer (but wouldn't necessarily oppose) the article if it took a more uniformed layout to match that of Dundee, Manchester, Shaw and Crompton, as recommended by WP:UKCITIES. It's nice to follow a House style to keep these settlements consistent. Done
In Governance be careful not to confuse councils with divisions of land - "The Brownhills District established in 1877 remained in existence until 1894 when it was superseded by Brownhills Urban District Council" - I know what you mean, but the district is a territory, whilst the council is a group of people; they cannot merge! "Council" should be dropped. Done
Is it possible that the co-ordinates of Brownhills could be added to the Geography section? (see Manchester as an example of this). Done Also is there nothing about Brownhills land use, urban structure and built environment that could be added? Done - I think.....

I hope these suggestions help, -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, I have actioned some and will look at the others when I have a bit more time available over the weekend...... ChrisTheDude 11:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the name of the canal to the caption of the bridge photo since it isn't mentiuoned in this section. It also explains what the bridge is going over (ie a canal) without having to search the text. I think the Economy section should restate the date of the demise in the coal industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Andrews (talk • contribs) 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done ChrisTheDude 13:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, nothing more, nothing less! -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very well sourced. You might want to expand the Lead/Intro a teensy bit more, and use an Article History template on the talk page instead of the GA and Peer Review boxes separately. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Done I've slightly expanded the lead as requested ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent, well-written article. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 23:11, 27 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.