Wikipedia:Featured article review/Trafford Park/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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 6:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [1].

---

Trafford Park

Notified: Parrot of Doom, Eric Corbett, WikiProject Greater Manchester, WikiProject UK geography, 06-08-2024

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited statements and paragraphs, the lead is long and could be better formatted. The "Current and future transport" and "Political representation" sections are underdeveloped, and the "History" section stops at 2008. There is no "Demographics" section, although I do not know if this is possible to obtain from census or other data. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Drmies removed the strike out of Eric Corbett's name with this edit. The strike-out is to indicate that a notice was not sent to that editor for the stated reason. Z1720 (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes: removed as an unnecessary badge of shame. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@John: I see that you did some edits to this article. Are you interested in bringing this back to FA status? Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. John (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@John: Awesome. Feel free to ping me when ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Wilco. I'm a little busy in real life but I should get to it this week.John (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry this has taken longer than I anticipated. I'll get to it soon. John (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Move to FARC Concerns remain, no edits since October. Z1720 (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• @John: Are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes. I'm sorry I've been too busy and unwell to take care of it up to now. John (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  I finally got the chance to look at this last night, and it looks like many/most/all of Z1720's concerns may have ben addressed. I took a quick look over it, slimmed some repetition, and updated the local MP's latest election result. I think it's looking good now. John (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  @John: I added cn tags to the article where I think they are needed. Lead looks fine, history section has been updated, political representation has been updated and expanded. "Current and future transportation" is still underdeveloped: perhaps the heading should be removed and the information merged with "Transport"? No other concerns after that. Z1720 (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think between 2A00:23C7:DC0C:A101:F851:89A9:A654:4A7C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and me we have tidied up the tags. The departures from the railway station was surprisingly hard to verify; TheTrainline.com is a commercial source but I think a strong one for train destinations. I am still thinking about your suggestion of merging the transport stuff. John (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

  Z1720m what do you think now? John (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@John: I copyedited and trimmed the article: please revert and discuss if there is any disagreement. Comments below:

• "and remains the largest in Europe, well over a century later." This statement in the lead is cited to 2008, and doesn't seem to be in the article body. Is this statement still true in 2025, and should it be added to the article body?
• There is nothing in the lead about the governance, village, landmarks or transport. Instead, the lead seems to be a summary of the history section. Should these be added in?

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Nice work. I am sorry to lose the two quotes; I thought they added colour. Yes, the lead could be developed. John (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• The lead is supposed to be "a summary of its [the article's] most important contents", not *all* of its contents. For an industrial park that would evidently seem to be its inception, growth, decline and regeneration, all of which I would argue are adequately covered in the lead. That there are now buses and trams running through the estate, or which wards/constituency it is in today, when nobody lives there anyway, doesn't seem, to me at least, to be worthy of inclusion in the lead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:DC0C:A101:F81B:D05F:C552:343E (talk • contribs)

  Yes, I can see that argument. Z1720, if you have no further objections, maybe we are done here? John (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep I don't think this FAR needs an argument about what should be in the lead. If others in the future want to add or remove information, I will probably not be too bothered. I wish information that it "remains the largest in Europe, well over a century later." would be in the article body, not just in the lead. Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for that. I share your reservations about this claim; I added what sourcing I could find and I think it's better now. John (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep - per above; I've read through the article as well and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 16:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, 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) 16:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

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