Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crawley/archive1

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

Self-nominated by

• 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]

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.
    • →All should be accurate now. Hassocks5489 (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
    • → Changed; new caption is more informative. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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
    • → Refs added. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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:

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.Kensplanet^Talk_E-mail^{Contributions} 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.