Wikipedia:Peer review/Crawley/archive1

Crawley

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

It has been improved significantly through a lengthy collaboration between myself (Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)) and another user, Tafkam. Crawley is an important town in South-East England, but before the rewrite, which took place in userspace, its article was stub-like, listy and messy. (Diff dated 30 August 2007.) Since the rewrite (first diff), the article has been stable and has had more content added as per WP:UKGEO's style guide to writing about UK settlements. The intention is to seek FA status after this review, but as neither of us have attempted this for an article before, we would appreciate guidance on tone, layout, use of images (too many...?) and length (too long? Too much detail in some sections? Should some be split off into separate articles?).[reply]

Thanks, Tafkam and Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it has taken me a long time for this. Here's a first set of things to look at. I'll be coming back with a second set at some point. Apologies if I've asked about something that is explained or has since been fixed but I've partly read various versions of the article through the last week and not checked what the changes have been.

Are the districts that Crawley is next to really so vital to the article that they need mentioning in the intro?

~~→I'll move to the Geography section.~~Done. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Although the area was inhabited from the Stone Age onwards' - does this imply that it isn't inhabited any more? How about 'Has been inhabited'? Also has the inhabitation been continous?

Reworded to clarify, although I'll need a source to confirm continuous habitation. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about links for Roman, market town.

Done. Tafkam (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'The area was designated as the site of one of the "new towns" proposed by the New Towns Act 1946, however, and rapid development ensued' - why 'however'?

~~→In contrast to its slow and steady growth to that point; but I agree, it's not really needed.~~Reworded. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When were the 3 places absorbed, soon after 1946 or more recently?

~~→Three Bridges was very soon after; Ifield was also fairly early; Pound Hill was quite late (1970s/1980s).~~Wording added to reflect this. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st link to Horsham is to the district the 2nd is to the town yet both passages are refering to the district. Probably only the 1st is needed.

Done. One mention was moved to the Geography section; have linked the other mention to the Horsham District article. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has the expansion been planned with Horsham because the town extends beyond the districts borders?

→I think it's because it will encroach into Horsham District territory if it goes ahead. Can check.

It will be entirely outside the Crawley borough boundaries as they currently stand... but immediately bordering the town. Not sure how we can cite that,save for showing a map maybe?

Added sentence from the existing source to describe this, but not sure if more detail is needed, as Tafkam says. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who awarded the coat of arms and who chose the motto?

→Have expanded this section, although I can't find any reference to exactly who chose the motto. I have provided an explanation of its origin, though. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why have the same image twice? I do like the large number of images though, much better than a lot of town articles. I might crop some of them, the one of Woodfield Road has a lot of sky that doesn't add a lot to it for example.

→The duplication occurred recently when another editor put the Queen's Square pic in the infobox and didn't remove it from its original position. I'll remove one of them.

Replaced with another, of The Boulevard, and a further image added. Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Crawley poulation graph's text does not come out well on my screen. Could this be redone so the text comes out better at the size it will display at?

Done. Hassocks5489 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture captioned 'The remains of Lowfield Heath village, looking east towards St Michael's church.' does not look like the remains of anything. The church looks fairly intact although you can hardly see it. I assume that the Travelodge is not one of the remains!

→I'll amend the caption. Lowfield Heath is a weird place and very difficult to get a decent photo of because of its strange, squashed-in layout. The church is theoretically still open, but in reality is partly derelict. Hopefully there are some sources out there.

Caption reworded, although I think the whole Lowfield Heath section needs work. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horsham Culture - redlinks aren't often liked for FAs. Same for Anthony Minoprio etc.

All either delinked or linked via alternative relevant wikilink. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link burial mound.

Done. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was the annex built in the middle of the street? How did people use the street after this? Was it the annex or the original inn that became the George Hotel?

→I believe it was in the middle of the street. (It's an incredibly wide high street.) The original building is the modern hotel, I'm pretty sure. Will check and source.

Your belief is correct. Best sources are probably photographs from books... can these be cited?

Should the church be "St John the Baptist's"?

Done. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did nothing much happen in Crawley in the Middle Ages then? Are there population figures or anything to at least give an idea of how it grew through time?
'The locally-famous Longley family' - if it is worth mentioning them it is worth mentioning why they are or were locally famous. Was the expansion in housebuilding related to the Longleys setting up business?

~~→Yes, they were a prominent local building firm. I think I have info in one of my Crawley books.~~Reworded to give an idea of their prominence. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map of West Sussex is fairly meaningless to people who don't already know the area very well. Could we have the names of the other areas shown? Or dots for towns? Or main roads or rivers?

→I'll see what other maps are already available; otherwise I can get somebody at WP:UKGEO to do a bespoke one.

The Dutch article on Crawley does this slightly better by having both the country and local maps next to each other. I've not checked if this infobox supports this. JMiall ₰ 13:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left the map showing the borough, but have added to the infobox a "dot map" showing the town within the county and the county within England. This might not be an ideal solution, as it makes the infobox quite long. Hassocks5489 (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the text in New Town section could do with a bit of work. I was wondering if I was being too picky but as there are several such as 'and then more widely' - what does this mean?, 'original proposals for a population of 40,000 were insufficient to match the growth of the town' - firstly it has already been said it was planned to go to 50,000 in 1949 but also if the growth of the town was down to the plan then how was the town growing beyond the plan? Was it just that there was a lot of demand to live in the area (i.e. houses were filling up as soon as they were built) so the planners decided to make the town bigger than they had origianlly envisaged?

→Will thoroughly edit this section (I hadn't really touched it since writing it originally). From memory, there were two conflicting sources on the projected population: one said 40,000 and the other 50,000. Demand for housing was immense: your phrase above covers the situation pretty well.

'the Hawth', is this an area of town, road?

→It's a local name. I've found a source: "The Hawth gets its name from a local pronunciation of the word 'heath', an area of rough grazing not suitable for general farming use. The name then became associated with the wooded area in which the theatre is situated." (Link) I'll put this in soon.

Did Crawley not have any of those public services before the 60s then? Wouldn't they have been in the original plan as they'd be fairly essential for a town of this size?
Were all residents permitted to buy their houses from the outset? How about putting the council owned sentence earlier. JMiall ₰ 18:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, JMiall — they are extremely helpful. I'll be addressing this first set of points over the course of the week. Cheers, Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a few notes. Will try to find some evidence to support some of the thornier points at some point! Tafkam (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back for chunk 2, still lots more to go...

'the slimmest majority as of the 2005 General Election' - 'majority of the' I would guess unless you are expecting the situation to change soon.

Rewritten. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(this may be a bit nitpicky but) wouldn't the geological beds actually meet beneath the town?

Word changed. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'The land to the south of the town, in the then much extended Tilgate Forest, saw the discovery of the first bone of an Iguanodon in 1822, near Cuckfield' - this is a horrible sentence. Put the date before the 'then' and all the location bits together.

See below. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other significant dinosaur finds nearby? The 1st Iguanadon discovery sounds quite significant, maybe this should be extended to a paragraph or more.

I have overcome both points by significantly extending the paragraph to include more info about the discovery, and something about the subsequent discovery (also in Tilgate Forest) and naming of the Hylaeosaurus. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the climate template and have seen a few of these recently. I'm particularly interested as I put together something like this myself not too long back choosing colours fairly randomly. Is there a standard colour scheme for these somewhere? If not then I'd argue that 16degC is hardly dark-orange temperatures and 3.8 hardly white.

I based it on the one in the Weymouth article — although just looking at it again, some of the colours don't match up. There are a few listed in the . I think the Weymouth example was the first one used on Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be a standard colour scheme. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'the street name is displayed in black on a white background, with a coloured strip below it bearing the name of the neighbourhood in white text.' - I don't think you need this

Removed that clause. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the Neighbourhoods of Crawley table is not necessarly below the map

Removed "below". Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the population is a bit different in age to the county (and country?) it may be informative to show population pyramids for both these, again if the info is easily available.
'Plans were soon in place' - what, soon after it became a market town?

Rewritten to clarify. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'the rapid growth of Gatwick Airport provided further opportunities' - for what? I think the language in this whole section could do with tightening up. For example you would expect any industry to encompass newer technologies to some extent with time. Did Crawley's do it to a particularly large amount?

Changed the sentence to emphasise the impact of the airport. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Unemployment has been historically low in the (new?) town, during the boom of the 1980s the town boasted the lowest level of unemployment in the UK.[53] and had rates at around 1.47% of the working-age population in 2003.[54]' - I think this is a better ordering of these 2 sentences.

Reordered and slightly rewritten. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'However, there are some discrepancies' - however again! What is this however about? We've just been told about the lo w unemployment rates so presumably there are reasonable numbers of vacancies then it is mentioned that an area with the most vacancies is a discrepancy.

Removed whole sentence. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JMiall ₰ 23:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]