Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch
Due to various content and notability issues, disorganized and poorly laid out sections, and substantial overlap on the main Randolph, Tennessee entry, I am recommending this article for reassessment to B-class, and also consideration for deletion and merging with main page.

Content

Much of the article covers the history of the wider area of West Tennessee and the middle Mississippi River basin.

• Indian cultures section is almost entirely dedicated to the wider history of Native American settlement in the Southeastern United States. Only one sentence is directly related to Randolph, otherwise the paragraph and section are not appropriate for this article. nf utvol ( talk) 16:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
• The European settlement is better than the Indian cultures section, but still needs work. I condensed the information on de Soto and La Salle's exploration and removed unrelated information. The first paragraph of the subsection on European settlers is more focused on the wider region.
• The Establishment section is mostly fine, though I would cut the final sentence. Old Republican should be Wikilinked in its first mention.
• Cotton commerce is mostly fine, but under Travel Routes reference 32 (to TDOT) is dead and doesn't support the information. I might have missed it, but the last paragraph under Travel routes isn't supported by the reference. The Slavery section again is mostly focused on the wider issue of slavery in the United States, with only a couple of sentences dedicated specifically to slavery in Randolph. It either needs to be expanded with more information or merged into another section. The Decline section should probably not be in Cotton commerce, though it's largely fine content-wise. Additionally, the table for historic populations is of questionable utility, with only four data points and a 147 year gap.
• The Civil War section is mostly copy-and-pasted from the main pages on Fort Wright and Fort Randolph. These sub-sections could probably be merged into a "Fortifications" sub-section, edited to be more concise, and left with the appropriate Main Article tags. Under destruction, needs copy-editing (for instance, Randolph's location 40km north of Memphis is mentioned multiple times and could probably be done away with here).
• The Church history section has significant issues pertaining to notability. Why is there an entire paragraph on a local church, including its pastor, attendance, and address? See: WP:ISNOT.
• The Postal history is largely discussed above in the Commerce section. Additionally, large parts of it are not supported by the sources, or are not adequately sourced. For instance, the discussion about the road is not appropriately sourced (it's just a link to a street named Old Randolph Road in Memphis...which may or may not be a reference to the road to the town of Randolph). Also the ZIP code and area code are not appropriate for a history section.
• The Modern history section has numerous issues. The first paragraph is not sourced appropriately at all. The last paragraph is almost entirely unsourced except for the population.
• The notes section needs to be condensed to a couple of sentences and placed in the Civil War section. The rest of the information on the forts should be broken out into their respective articles. nf utvol ( talk) 16:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Delist

No feedback received, delisting. nf utvol ( talk) 14:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply