Talk:Runcorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cheshire Portal This article is supported by the Cheshire WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-Priority on the priority scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment Report

1. Article needs to be expanded using Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as a guide.
2. Make the article more encyclopaedic
3. As a reminder: References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. There should be a greater use of "in-line" citations. (See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

 DDStretch  (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Contents 1 Like a tourist guide 2 Revision 3 Geography 4 Reorganisation

[edit] Like a tourist guide

This isn't a very encyclopedic layout, it set out more like a travel guide. Please correct it. Thanks DannyM 19:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Danny. I agree; the article is a mess. I am new to Wikipedia and did not know what to expect but was certainly surprised to see the content of this page. I have already had to revert quite a bit of vandalism. Why not have a go at some of it yourself? Only I should be grateful if you could leave the bits I have added - History after 1656, the population table, the photo, the References and the Further reading. Much of the rest could (should?) go in my opinion - most of sections 5 to 12. What do you think? PS I live in Runcorn. Peter I. Vardy 21:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a mess. The facts are mainly there, I was more concerned about the layout, I live in Warrington (your local neighbour lol). So I'll have a go after a short break for Christmas :). All the Best DannyM 22:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed several of the obvious tourist-orinenated information. I however, converged much of the text from the tourist sections into the main body, mainly as an expansion on what had been written previously. (This comment made on 01:41, December 27, 2006 by User:Auzdafluff.)

[edit] Revision

This article has been the subject of criticism. Following the advice given above I have more or less re-written it in what I hope is a more "encyclopaedic" style. So my apologies to all previous editors who have contributed so much. I hope this version is more to the liking of those who are familiar with Wiki standards and guidelines. Constructive comments are of course welcome. Peter I. Vardy 14:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography

Having just done a quick sweep of the article (which looks great!), I'd just like to point out that the Physical geography and geology section doesn't include much about physical geography and geology - it mainly includes content about transport links, and thus needs a little attention to get it right.

The Geography and administration may also benefit from a Civic history section, outlining changes to local government and administrative changes throughout the ages.

Other than this, I suspect this article would reach, WP:GA. Jhamez84 00:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganisation

It might be an idea to check the sectioning for the following reason: A bid for GA status by Middlewich has just failed, with one of the reasons being that its sectioning didn't comply with the advice given in WP:CITIES and that the sectioning given in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements differed from that suggested in WP:CITIES. Now I don't want to get into a dispute about whether guidelines written for USA cities should be or should not be used to evaluate articles about UK towns for GA status, but i will comment that the UK guidelines have subsequently been edited by someone to make them come more into line with the WP:CITIES set of guidelines, and so if GA status is applied for, it may be as well to try to abide by the edited guidelines. (Though I must admit to being slightly irriatted at this "chantging of the goalposts" by editing the guidelines that is going on.) I hope I have described the main deatils of this correctly.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bit more on this, partly as suggested by Jhamez84. One point of criticism by the WP:GA assessor of Middlewich was the "Present day" heading, which I agree makes no sense, so I have removed that. Looking at the headings in WP:CITIES, this article includes info relating to all of them, not necessarily in their order or under their precise headings, plus a few more sections which I think are appropriate in this article for an encyclopaedia. But I've changed/added headings to more closely reflect the (USA) guidelines. Do other editors think we should reorganise further or leave it more or less as it is? Peter I. Vardy 14:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I might raise at the UK Geography WikiProject that the UK may require a UK-specific cities guide, as this problem has occured a few times. I understood that the WP:CITIES guide related to cities, and the UK geography guidelines related to smaller settlements (towns, villages, hamlets, wards and districts). We also have the problem that many cities form local government districts (such as Manchester - which also require a different approach). In the meantime, the Runcorn article looks good. You may wish to look at other GA-class UK geography articles. Jhamez84 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would definitely help. The GA reveiewer did a good job for Middlewich, but as he is a USA citizen, resident there, he probably did not know some of the country-specific issues that a UK person might know, thus enabling a UK person to intuitively customise the advice given in WP:CITIES for the UK case. In fact, it may be a good thing to flag this up on the WP:CITIES article (there is a template:Globalize/USA template that could be used - I've used it successfully on Psychiatry, for example, to get people to start considering the training of psychiatrists outside the USA.)  DDStretch  (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Shaw and Crompton is a GA article that uses the UK geography settlement guidelines. I didn't think either guideline was mandatory though! That said, I think developing a WP:UKCITIES guide would be the right step forwards anyway, not only for this article, but many, many others. Jhamez84 18:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)