Talk:Royal Tunbridge Wells/Comments
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article needs a good deal of work to bring it up to standard.
- It is top-heavy with lists -particularly the two lists of people and the External links - see below
- the introductory paragraph should be just that - a summary of the article. Anything to do with the borough (eg population) should be kept for that article. Town twinning is not for here either - a Culture section might be the answer
- the history of Tunbridge Wells does not properly begin in 1606, and there was some while before anyone lived here (see later on in the article). The site itself should be considered - eg stone quarrying went on here in Roman times
- the town name deserves a special para (Toponymy?)
- there must be a Geography section - where the site of the town is considered, and the underlying geology = the springs.
- too much of the article reads like a tourist pamphlet - "the Pantiles can be found ..." "grand Georgian hotels". And there is always the assumption that "prim middle classes" and the "bastion of the middle classes and comfortable bourgeois" are what is the perception of the town. Readers of the article may be from anywhere, and just because in the past the media might have put that about, it means nothing if you are not "English". The "Staying and Eating in Tunbridge Wells" makes the point far better than I can - we are not the tourist industry.
- it is the norm for schools to refer to the List of schools in Kent and this para to be used for extra comments - no list
- and the same goes for people lists which should be combined and moved to a standard List of people from Tunbridge Wells (compare List of people from Dover, since there are 74 names here.
- also far too many External links - some are not referred to in the text and many are tourist-based; three are photographs of the town
Peter Shearan (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
