Talk:Crawley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crawley article.
Article policies
Good article Crawley has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] History

This article woefully disregards the complex history of the town as it now exists. It is written without regard to the fact that the New Town, like others in the UK, swallowed up pre-existing communities, some of which, like Ifield and Crawley have been around for centuries. The article here covers that history. The listing of all those neighbourhoods simply adds a large number of stubbed articles, again without reference to any previous history. I am not local to the area, simply one who has a little knowledge, so would be loath to do any rewriting - but someone ought! Peter Shearan 16:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now attempted to right the wrong! I am sure more could be added though to make the article less of a boring listing! We really must get rid of all those neighbourhoods posing as villages (see Category: Villages in West Sussex and the comment on the talk page thereon Peter Shearan 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
"It is written without regard to the fact that the New Town, like others in the UK, swallowed up pre-existing communities, some of which, like Ifield and Crawley have been around for centuries." - Quite right, and I was wondering if a little something on the Worth controversy should be included. It would be hard to source. Makron1n 01:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links Removed

Was it a policy decision to remove all the local links, except the borough council's? Not sure why they should not be listed. Can anyone explain?Tafkam 19:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

External links should not be advertising things such as local B&B's or shops. They should not be personal blogs, they should be of high quality. I removed the following.
In Crawley (Guide to Crawley)
Crawley Online; information portal & directory about the West Sussex town
Crawley Neighbourhood Watch
Crawley Business Directory
Francis Frith Photos of Crawley taken by the :Victorian photographer Francis Frith
If you feel that any of these are suitable then make a case for their inclusion and if you make a reasonable case for their inclusion I will not revert your edit. However, when i skimmed through them none seemd to suitable as external links. David D. (Talk) 18:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - I bow to your greater knowledge of 'allowed' links Tafkam 19:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not dictating and certainly if you really think these links are worth while I will probably accept your view. These are rarely black and white cases. Look at them in light of what i say above and see if you still think they are useful. If you think they are, then put them back in. I will defer to your judgement. David D. (Talk) 01:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I can see your point; I can't say as I feel overly strongly about it either way. We will see if anyone else notices/cares. I only ask really because I noticed it on my Watchlist, and wondered the reasoning. Tafkam 09:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the discussion which has taken place, I was surprised to see one of the external link re-appear. I think that it as perhaps the least encyclopaedic value of any of the previously removed links. I am about to revert to the previous version (with only the borough council link remaining), subject to further discussion.Tafkam 13:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Executive Control

As of May 2006 elections, according to the Crawley Borough Council website council composition following results: * 16 Labour * 19 Conservative * 2 Liberal Democrat; thus conservatives have a majority of 51.4% Accordingly, the council's executive is made up of 8 conservative councillors. Therefore, it is clear that the authority is conservative-controlled at present. Accordingly, edits which have changed status to NOC have been reverted twice. Please do not alter again without citation of any change. Tafkam 17:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - my mistake; although the council website still shows Conservative control on its elections page, and its executive, the previous editor is correct, as Councillor Marcella Head joined the LibDem party in early December changing the balance. My apologies once again. Tafkam 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It is amazing that the council's own website contradicts itself. Part of the reason for this could be that at the time of elections they can freely note changes, but the defection of a councillor from one political party to another mid-term is maybe harder to make a note of without it comming across as political comment. However the Liberal Democrats have been happy to note the fact on their own sites http://crawleylibdems.org.uk/news/000329.html?PHPSESSID=801ceb21 http://www.brighton-hovelibdems.org.uk/news/000290.html?PHPSESSID=801ceb21

[edit] Proposed rewrite

There is much to be written about Crawley, especially (as noted above) regarding the planning and development of the New Town. I have created a proposed structure at one of my user subpages here (ignore its misleading title!), based on the layout used on Featured article Featured Article-status town/city articles such as Weymouth and Sheffield. Feel free to add bits, or comments, ideas etc. The idea will be, if I ever get to the stage where I have written as much as I can, to move it across here to replace the current text of the article. Hassocks5489 13:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A much-needed boost - will try to offer some assistance where I can. Tafkam 13:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
We (Hassocks5489 and Tafkam) have now completed the rewrite (well, as far as we can!), so I am moving the result across to this page now. Note that although the full rewrite history will not be reflected in the Edit History here, it will be preserved on the user subpage I used for the rewrite (here). Hassocks5489 19:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I have reviewed this article, and it overall meets the Good Article criteria quite easily. It's prose is well written and well constructed, easy to read, and it is sufficiently sourced with ample references. The lead provides a good summary of the article. The images also have appropriate copyright tags as well.

The geography section seems to be a little image-heavy, and I think it would look better if the table referencing the map image was positioned in closer proximity to the map itself. Also, the table is color-coordinated, but the map is not. It would help if the map was also color-coordinated. Why does the first bullet item mentioned manor royal industrial estate mentioned that it is allocated a color, but it doesn't show up in the table?

A couple of minor structural changes should be made to be in compliance with WP:UKCITIES.

  • Remove demographics from the geography section & put it into its own section. Demographics seems like it has enough information to warrant its own main section, and doesn't appear to be too related to geography.
  • Combine geology and climate with the geography section. These are more closely related together, and agrees with the UK Cities guideline (also agrees with WP:USCITY, too.

Other than these little issues, I think this article is pretty much at the Good Article level. I am placing it on hold at WP:GAC until the issues are addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review here, Derek. To take each point in turn:
  • I have removed one image from Geography and into the "New Town" section, where it also seems appropriate as it shows a typical residential street within the new town development.
  • I have moved the neighbourhoods image next to the table.
  • I'm not sure how to edit the map myself, but I will try to work out how to do this or ask somebody to have a go.
  • Manor Royal is a special case in that it is allocated a colour (like the residential neighbourhoods) but is not a residential neighbourhood itself. The table, and the accompanying image, only show the 13 residential neighbourhoods. It's just an anomaly, really (I suppose the council thought it appropriate to distinguish the industrial area using the same method it used for the residential areas - i.e. the coloured bands on road name signs.)
  • I have moved the demographics and other sections as requested.
I'll make the map work a priority now. Thanks, Hassocks5489 12:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
New version of the map has now been uploaded and linked. Hassocks5489 12:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The article looks good. I made a minor change in the order of subsections within the geography section, putting the neighborhoods at the end and moving the geography bit to the front, since it serves as a better intro to that section. I also shortened the title of the section and added a climate subsection to differentiate the climate information.

The article now meets the GA criteria, and will be listed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 19:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neighbourhood Image

Not directly related to this page - but why cant the neighbourhood articles use the neighbourhood image - at the moment they use one of the maps that show the uk - which just shows the neighbourhood is somewhere in south east england and not the relationships within Crawley. MilborneOne 12:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good question! I haven't got round to tidying up the individual neighbourhood articles yet, but I agree that the neighbourhood map (especially in its new form with the colour scheme) would be more useful. I'll try to get a chance to do this today. Hassocks5489 12:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nip and tuck

Hello. Just a note that I've given this (magnificant!) article a slight nip and tuck to bring it more closely inline with WP:UKCITIES and those UK geography articles that have FA (Dundee, Sheffield, Oldham, Chew Stoke, Blyth etc).

The next step is to take this to Peer review to get some manual and automatic feedback on the prose. I personally would like to see some of the material cropped to new History of Crawley and Geography of Crawley daughter articles (like say, Manchester and Sheffield - both major cities). Some of the sections are very, very lengthy, and possibly off putting for readers.

Other than that, once PR is actioned and followed up, take this to Featured Article Nomination and announce it at WP:UKGEO and WP:ENGLAND. Well done! -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll help anyway I can. Drop me a line if anything is needed. Rudget.talk 18:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neighbourhood maps

Sorry not directly related to this article but to the Crawley neighbourhood articles. Each of the neighbourhoods has a map of the UK in their infobox which just indicated roughly in the UK where they are, would it not be better to show their relationship within Crawley using a version of the neighbourhood map on here. I suspect it is a project thing but I thought I would ask! MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metro area population

Does adding the population of SE England to the infobox really add anything of relevance to this article? It strikes me as rather misleading. Tafkam (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dont think it is misleading just not that important as far as Crawley is concerned. Not sure it has any value as the south east england is not really a metropolitan area like london or manchester. And most people, even from Crawley, would not have a concept of what south east england is. The link is red so we dont really know what is meant. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that it was deliberately misleading, but rather, for someone who doesn't know England (which must be the vast proportion of Wiki users), it might imply that the town forms part of some metropolitan area, which it clearly doesn't. Tafkam (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I was suggesting that even people from Crawley dont know what it means! MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the entry, on the premise that it serves no purpose, and given the lack of definition of the area, is not really verifiable either. Tafkam (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] St John the Baptist bells

According to Dove's Guide (regarded by ringers as the standard reference on church bells), John the Baptist has 8 19th century bells, no mention is made of the 1742 bells - it's possible that they are still there, but not hung for change ringing, but in any case, the current wording seems a little mis-leading, there are more than 2 bells in the tower. David Underdown (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrected with the help of this source and another which explains the situation with the 1742 bells (they were replaced in 1880 with the eight referred to here). Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Good stuff, I was slightly confused since the original source appeared to have a publication date of 1940, so would have post-dated the replacement of the bells. David Underdown (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think the British History site was in error (surprisingly, as it's usually reliable). The original writer in 1940 probably hadn't updated it to reflect the changes in 1880, I imagine. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final peer review thoughts

  • 'Crawley now has 17 primary schools' senstence - does this sentence need the dashes? and should denominational be explained further? Are they all Christian schools or other religions too?
Reworded, changed order and confirmed the nature of the four denominational schools. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also can the 'now' be changed to something refering to 2008. Be careful of this type of thing throughout the article.
I've eliminated quite a few "now"s, where possible. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • sort out capitalisation and a reference for the very last sentence.
Done. No ref found for Sharron Davies, so I've removed her. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • has Crawley ever appeared on film or been the setting of major TV series?
A search on IMDb turns up only very minor appearances in a couple of short documentaries which don't really have any notability. Hassocks5489 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • make sure that everything mentioned in the lead also appears in the rest of the article - distances to places for example.
Done. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with the improvements. JMiall₰ 21:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks again for your help. I will invite comments at WP:UKGEO, and then put up for WP:FA status. Hassocks5489 (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colour inconsistency

Why is the neighbourhood colour scheme not the same in the table and in the map? The thoughts that ran through my head were:

  • A trick of the light - no, my graphics app confirms that the RGB values are different.
  • A gamma (in)correction problem - no, the figures are inconsistent with this view, among other evidence.
  • The two were done independently - no, the history shows that Hassocks5489 (talk · contribs) was responsible for both.

The biggest difference is in the colour used for Broadfield: #7DF9FF (table), #00C0C0 (map). Why the two colour schemes?

OK, so it would be easy to fix it so that they match. But before I do, I have one more question: Has anybody established that either set of colours more accurately reflects (NPI) the true street sign colours? (That said, I'm not sure that the signs in each neighbourhood all use exactly the same colour, but I'd expect that the colours currently used for new signs are exactly defined.) -- Smjg (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I will do a full reply later today. (Essentially, I need to correct the map. Some of the colours went funny when I saved it, if I remember correctly.) Hassocks5489 (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually not quite a full reply, as I won't have access to my source until tomorrow. The source I used for the colours was a street map of Crawley which gave the neighbourhood names and colours in a key. (Despite intensive searching, I can't find anything on the council website or elsewhere on line, surprisingly.) Next, I selected the closest matching colours from the list of colours and added the hex values to the table. Then I tried the bit which I'm no good at: designing the graphic. Using MSPaint (!) probably wasn't the best idea, as when I saved it to .png format some of the colours changed rather significantly (notably the bright blue of Broadfield, as you say). In summary,
  • If you are able to correct/improve the map, I would be very grateful, as I have reached the limits of my graphical abilities
  • The correct colours to use, as far as is possible, are the ones in the table
  • I'll check the colour names on my map to make sure the hex values I have used are as accurate as possible
  • I'll continue to look for a definitive source for the colours. Hassocks5489 (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
For info: Smjg has today uploaded a new version with corrected colours. Hassocks5489 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)