Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crawley/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 19:02, 9 April 2008.

Crawley edit

Self-nominated by Hassocks5489. I have collaborated with User:Tafkam since August 2007 on this article, building it up from a listy, start-class effort to a much more comprehensive and better-referenced piece. I'm a bit concerned it may be a bit too long, although I did the "raw prose text" measurement thing and found it came to about 43KB of raw text. The article complies with the guidelines for writing about UK settlements; I have checked all links and references; I think all Manual of Style breaches have been removed; and a Peer Review has recently been provided. For info: the rewrite took place on my user subpage here, and the full edit history is preserved there. As can be seen, Tafkam and I have contributed approximately equally to the changes since August. Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/laura_moffatt/crawley Being a Yank, I'm not familiar with this site, is it considered reliable?

→ I have found the information on other, more reliable sites now anyway, and have replaced the refs. Hassocks5489 (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* What makes this http://www.dinohunters.com/ a reliable site?

→ I have rewritten the paragraph and incorporated two more appropriate sources. Hassocks5489 (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Boundary Committee website seems fine to me now, TheyWorkForYou generally seems to be held to be reliable - I've seen it quoted in the press as a source before now - though I note that our article on it here states that one of its information sources is Wikipedia, so there could be a problm of circularity. David Underdown (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
→ Now working for me as well; possibly a temporary glitch. Hassocks5489 (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double check the link tool above .. a couple of the pages redirected and gave other errors.
→ For the BGS link, which is an interactive, searchable geological map and which came up with an error message on the link tool, I have provided a supplementary link to a static map. It's a .jpg on a university academic's web page hosted by his university; I hope that will be considered suitable, even though it was published under his own name. I have left the BGS link in as well anyway. The Property News one seems to take ages on some attempts and be OK on others. The Sussex Police one appears to be behaving correctly when it is clicked, although the link tool picks up a Soft 404. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
→ Update: (a) BGS link removed. (b) I have found the direct link to the page referring to the three neighbourhood policing areas, but it is still producing a Soft 404 on the link tool, even though clicking on the link (or going to it manually in a different browser window) produces no errors or redirects. Not sure what more can be done there. (c) Although the Thames Water map comes up with an "Invalid type for .swf file" message, it gives an "OK" code on the link checker and always comes up correctly when navigated to; do I need to do anything with that one? Hassocks5489 (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the redirects ws for the council website where they seem to be using some sort of content management system. I'm slightly concerned that by giving the "final" url we're actually doing the equivalent of linking to an oldid in wikipedia - i.e. goign to a single fixed version of the page, wehreas goign to the base url htttp://www.crawley.gov.uk is perhaps more likely to always give us the current version of the site. David Underdown (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be more comfortable if sections of the history weren't sourced to the Borough Council website.
→ I should be able to supersede them all using a recently obtained book. I will remove the links to the website once the new sources (under the name Gwynne) go in. May take a little while to eliminate all. Hassocks5489 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise the sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose—1a and 2a. Here are mere examples.

  • "The town comprises 13 planned "neighbourhoods" (residential areas), separated by main roads and railway lines, and based around the core of the old market town." Most neighbourhoods are planned in some way; I'd drop that epithet here and explain the issue in the necessary detail further down. Solves the repetition problem of "planned" in the last sentence. Why is "neighbourhoods" in quotes? You may have reasons, but they're not sufficiently obvious. "The town comprises 13 residential neighbourhoods based around the core of the old market town, and separated by main roads and railway lines." Yes?
→ Looks better. The (probably subconscious) reasoning behind the quotes is that Crawley has unusually tightly planned and closely defined neighbourhoods: unlike most British towns, it has not really grown organically; also, it's fairly unusual for the term "neighbourhood" to be used in a British urban context, whereas it is the standard term in respect of Crawley (for example, the council uses the term consistently). I think the "Divisions and suburbs" subsection (which I'm going to rename) provides enough context, although a reference to the council's use of the term may help. Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is inadequate in scope and length.
→ I have attempted to rewrite; comments on the revised version would be welcome, in particular as to whether it is focused enough and whether I have improved the scope of coverage enough. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole text needs sifting for ungainly repetitions: "The earliest known evidence of human activity in what is now Crawley is evidenced by prehistoric finds that imply habitation at around 5000 BC.[2] Evidence of ...". There's yet a fourth "evidence" in the subsequent sentence, and a fifth in the sentence after that. Remove "known". Recast and change "finds" into "evidence"? Unsure.
→ This will be an ongoing process, but I have made a start tonight; again, your comments would be helpful as a guide to progress. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
→ Sections up to and including "Transport" have been attempted so far. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
→ The whole article has now been given one dose of the blue-pencil treatment. Again, I would welcome any comments or guidance on where I need to edit further. Hassocks5489 (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS breach: St Mary's caption is just a nominal group, so no period. The wording could be neater, too.
→ Have simplified it in line with the caption on the picture above it. Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "15" but "fourteenth"?
→ Corrected this discrepancy. Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TONY (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you find a collaborator first, before looking further. TONY (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues from ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Issues pertaining to images include:
    • Image:CoatofArms-Crawley.png lacks an adequate fair use rationale – see WP:RAT.
      • Double-check WP:RAT; the rationale still doesn't have all of the components. Perhaps using {{Non-free use rationale}} would help? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • → Didn't get a chance to do this earlier, but I hope to provide a better rationale by the end of today. Hassocks5489 (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Bleaah ... make that "by the end of Saturday"! Prose rewriting took longer than expected tonight. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • → I've tried to provide a similar rationale to those featured on some other COAs on UK place Featured Articles, using the template suggested above. I also found that the version uploaded was larger and of a higher resolution than that found on the Borough Council website, so I have uploaded a new, more appropriate lower-res version. Please let me know whether the rationale looks suitable. Hassocks5489 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are both Image:WestSussexCrawley.png and Image:West Sussex outline map with UK.png really necessary in the infobox – and on top of each other, at that? Seems like unnecessary redundancy.
      • → I put the second image in following a comment at the Peer Review (see the comment starting "The map of West Sussex is fairly meaningless to people who don't already know the area very well...". The top map is intended to show the location of the Borough within West Sussex, while the second shows the town in relation to other towns and rivers in West Sussex. I'll leave the second, as I feel that gives more meaning. Perhaps the first could be moved to the Governance section? Hassocks5489 (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • → Moved the first image to the Governance section, where it is most relevant. Hassocks5489 (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use of the verbiage “typical” to describe roads and neighborhoods seems to be WP:OR.
    • Image:Crawley Station 01 (07-07-2007).JPG should not be left-aligned under a level two header (see WP:MOS#Images).
    • “Sport and leisure” section has image sandwiching issues (also MOS#Images). Consider a gallery or, preferably, removing several images (Do we really need to see all of them? The volume seems superfluous and distracts from the truly important element of the article: the prose). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • → Other editors have specifically praised the number of images, so it's a difficult case. Having said that, the Leisure section can probably lose two of the four. Hassocks5489 (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • → The Hawth and the Broadfield Stadium have gone, as they are shown on the respective articles already. Hassocks5489 (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everybody here for their comments so far! They have been very useful. My next changes will now be made at some point tomorrow, including those I have mentioned in response to ElCobbola. Hassocks5489 (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments.
    • It'd be nice if the lede could be three paragraphs, just because they're all somewhat short (merging first and second would be 7 lines, or merging the second and third would be 8 lines)
      • → Have merged the second and third; they form the most logical continuation. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Double check your Wikilinks. Several redirect to other places, so you should fix it so the Wikilink goes directly to the article.
    • The image in the top-right just says "Queen's Square looking east-northeast". However, I have no context of what that means. Is Queen's Square the most part of town? It'd be nice if that could be put into a bit more context, though not too much.
    • I see two references in the lede. Are both of those facts mentioned in the article? If not, they should be; if not, then the references aren't needed, though you don't have to get rid of them.
      • → I have added a couple of sentences to ensure that ref 1 is used in the article and back up the equivalent assertions in the lede. The lede sentence with ref 2 is expanded upon in the very last sentence of the History subsection. I'll leave the refs in the lede. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the lede, As at 2008 - should that be As of 2008?
      • → Yes, goood catch: I think I introduced that error recently! Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crawley grew slowly in importance over the next few centuries, but was boosted in the 18th century by the increasing popularity of Brighton - so just checking. Was its population increased by the development of Brighton? I'm a tad confused at that, since there's no other mention of Brighton.
      • → I have clarified this by way of mentioning the London-Brighton turnpike, which had a significant impact. (I had intended to refer to the turnpike anyway, so this was a good opportunity.) Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be sure to add non-breaking spaces
    • The first paragraph of Governance isn't sourced
    • Same with Geography
    • The second paragraph in Shopping and retail should have a reference at the end of the last sentence. As a rule of thumb, every paragraph should have a reference at the end of it
    • The sections on Road and Rail each should be better referenced.
      • → Rail is done now. Road is proving surprisingly difficult (and frustrating!) to source. This website covers just about everything in terms of road numbers and where they go; its status as a suitable source by Wikipedia standards is marginal, I admit, but it has been accepted on the Featured Article M62 motorway. Before I add it, would you consider it suitable in the context of this article? If not, I'll have to continue diffing around (or recast that paragraph). Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am concerned about that source, in regards to the disclaimer. While I make every effort to keep the information on CBRD accurate and up to date, I make no guarantees as to the validity of any information on this website. Anyone acting on this information does so at their own risk and I can accept no liability or responsibility for the results. CBRD does not represent (or claim to represent) the road maintenance or construction industries, and unless stated otherwise, the information on it is not officially sourced or endorsed. On the other hand, it's already used on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • → The same questions apply to the SABRE website (A23 page shown here as an example) and The Motorway Archive. If these are considered suitable as sources, so much the better; if not, it's not the end of the world, but some guidance would be appreciated before I insert them. Thanks. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Same situation as above. I tend to think these are more suitable. It is much more desirable to get a more official source. The SABRE site mentions a list by the British Department of Transportation. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I presume the Manor Royal street signs are printed in white ink to show against a black background? --Dweller (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The signs actually look a bit like this:
ASHDOWN ROAD
TILGATE
FLEMING WAY
INDUSTRIAL
That is, a white upper part of the background with black lettering for the street name, and a coloured band below it with the neighbourhood name in white lettering. In the case of Manor Royal, the work "INDUSTRIAL" is used instead. I had a short explanation to that effect (without the graphics!) in the Neighbourhoods and Areas section, but I stripped it out at Peer Review after it was described as unnecessary. Do you think it should go back in, for clarity? Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a mention of white ink would suffice. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
→Added. Hassocks5489 (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support: Only some minor issues need to be addressed. This article clearly satisfies the FA criteria. It is a brilliant piece of work. Needs to be featured.KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 06:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Crawley/archive1&oldid=1138458202"