Talk:London Borough of Croydon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the London Borough of Croydon article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Good article London Borough of Croydon was a nominee for Geography and places good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for London Borough of Croydon: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Requests:
    • Y Done bring article up to B class standard and eventually to GA and FA standard.
    • add more pictures to Wikimedia Commons Category:Croydon
    • Y Done Cut the number of headings that are used by the article
    • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. Add these. For more info see:[?]
    • Y Done Check spelling and grammer on article. Especially changing american spellings to british ones.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Pafcool2 (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Archive

Archive
Archives
London Borough of Croydon / Archive 1
From merged Croydon Council article
London Borough of Croydon / Archive 2
Previous discussion
London Borough of Croydon / Archive 3
GA and Peer Reviews
London Borough of Croydon / Archive 4
Previous discussion

This article has been archived three times so far from as far back as 2003 when this article was created. For reference purposes see the Croydon Council discussion on why we only have one local government article for boroughs on wikipedia in London.

[edit] GA Review

Trying to anticipate forthcoming objections to GA status for this article, I've identified the following challenges pertaining to layout only:

  • The lead has five sections, a breach of WP:LEAD. The last sentence would be better off amalgamating with another paragraph.
  • The units of measurement in the lead should be linked.
  • There is alot of white space and text warping generated as a result of images being bunched up. Consider introducing a "|upright" field into the formatting, or move some from right to left.
  • I'm not a great fan of the ultra-strict stance on images, but I'm not comfortable with Image:Kiss-100-logo.jpg being used under fair use here. A photo of their HQ would be better anyway.
  • Unless there is good reason not to (i.e. the London WikiProject has its own recommendations for its boroughs) I'd be more inclined to follow the WP:UKCITIES standard layout. The Background section doesn't work for me, and doubt it will for the reviewer(s).

This isn't the review as such, I just thought I'd offer some commentary. Hope that helps for now, -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the statements above, and these should be addressed before GA status is assigned. Furthermore, here are some additional comments:
Rename the 'background' section to 'history' (basically all that's involved here is renaming the main header to history and eliminating the second-level header. The section as a whole is largely under-referenced, and needs more inline citations to comply with the Good article criteria.
Too much white-space in the governance section. The whole section can really be condensed a lot to read better and more cohesively, and I'd strongly recommend getting rid of the tables of political party elections -- they just don't offer anything of real value to the article (focus on the individuals that are in office in the government, not on parties).
The main article link to the Croydon local elections article is out of place and looks awkward in the middle of the article. These links should only be found at the very top of sections, not in the middle.
Why are there subsections for each of the main buildings under the governance section? The focus on this section should be on the actual government, and branches of government, not on various buildings. Many of these images can be removed from the article entirely, and the subsections are unnecessary. Again, the whole governance section needs to be made more cohesive and brought together better. I know I mentioned this before in the last GA Review. Did anyone actually read this?
Town twinning and sister cities is usually covered in a separate main section located near the end of the article, not under government. Call the section 'town twinning' or 'sister cities'. It's also quite awkward to begin the section with a single bullet point and then have an explanation of that afterwards. Here, I think the bullet point is totally unnecessary and the only reason I can think of that it's here is to allow editors to use their precious little 'flagicon' template for the Netherlands, which is not exactly the best reason for that.
The geography section is ok, but the 'roads' section is kind of bland and boring. I'd recommend changing the title of this to 'cityscape' and integrating this information with the information on neighborhoods. Cityscape should talk about the parts of the town and how they are connected, and not just be a prose listing of the roads.
Why are there two temperature charts in the climate section? This seems horribly redundant. Get rid of the one to the right and keep the one at the bottom. Double-check the source to make sure the numbers are still accurate. Other than this, the climate section actually looks ok.
Why does the neighborhoods section begin with a rather boring listing of postal codes? This is just generic information that really doesn't have to do with the culture and integration of neighborhoods, and can be eliminated. The {{Infobox city}} has an option for listing postal codes in it, in a basic list format, so it would be preferable to convert this article's infobox to that, and provide the postal codes there. Also, integrate this section in with 'roads', above.
More crowding issues. What is a wikimedia commons link for Offices in Croydon doing to the immediate right of the demographics section? It's crowded between to images at the right and looks pretty bad. And I'm not sure what the template has to do with the article content.
Demographics is written fairly well; there are a few external links within the article text that should be removed, per WP:MOS.
'Places of interest' and 'Transport' are largely devoid of reference citations.
The link to the london subway map overlays a section divider, and is crowded between to images and article text. It could probably just be deleted outright; wikipedia is not a directory.
Reference formatting issue in education section: The link to http://www.croydonplaycare.co.uk/ is not an actual reference citation, and just an external link. Unnecessary.
Lots of external links within article text in the religion section -- these should be removed per manual of style. Only internal wikilinks should appear in article prose and external links belong only in the external links section.
Remove the logos from the media section; they are not necessary when talking about this information, and do not fall under the 'fair use' clause of copyright law.
These are the big issues with the article. I'm rather surprised that there are still so many issues with this article, since it was [[mentioned this before in the last GA Review|reviewed before by several editors, including myself, and apparently it appears at first glance that most of the issues were not followed. I would strongly recommend taking a look at the guideline WP:UKCITIES and trying to make the article closely adhere to that format. This article at present just does not meet the Good article criteria, and cannot be passed as-is. Sorry. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Climate chart taken off

Is there anywhere else where this could go? Pafcool2 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Weather averages for London Borough of Croydon
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Average high °F 38 39 42 46 52 57 61 61 56 51 43 40 49
Average low °F 34 34 36 38 44 50 53 52 48 44 48 36 42
Precipitation inches 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.6 2.8 2 2 2.4 2
Average high °C 3 4 5 7 11 14 16 16 13 10 6 4 9
Average low °C 5 5 6 8 10 13 15 16 13 11 8 5 9
Precipitation cm 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 7 5 5 6 5.07
Source: Weatherbase [1] Nov 2007


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cherryorchard.JPG

The image Image:Cherryorchard.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

I believe I have found a copyright violation under the Education sub-heading on the article:

The Croydon Playcare Company (aka Gingerbread Corner) was the first Latchkey sceme in England set up in 1976 and was then called Croydon Gingerbread Charities. Its main aim was to provide quality childcare for single parents of children aged between 5 and 11 during school holidays and after school. Now almost 30 years later Playcare has grown and now caters for children up to age 16 and includes school pick up and drop off, a nursery and 11 Plus youth club.

It seems to have been taken directly from the opening page of the website Croydon Playcare with a few changes to words. To be on the safe side I have deleted it and doubt that it is notable enough to go back on this page anyway. Pafcool2 (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)