Talk:Runcorn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Good article Runcorn 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.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments

Contents

[edit] 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)

Revised Assessment
  1. A really good and major improvement in the article. I would put it in for at least Good Article status.

 DDStretch  (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[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)
I've added a section on Religion. This section does not appear in the guidance but I think it should be there; if you have education and schools, why not have religion and churches/chapels? And I think the history of religion in Runcorn is quite interesting, especially the Methodist growth in the early 19th century. Perhaps this could form part of the discussion with the UK Geography WikiProject. What do others think? Peter I. Vardy 15:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] GA review

Pass! Great work. Epbr123 11:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The article is undergoing peer review and following the advice here and support from WikiProject Cheshire here I have modified the lead removing the item criticised for leading to possible confusion and a need for further explanation, which would be out of place in the lead. Peter I. Vardy 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Lees

I am not convinced that this person is of sufficient status to be included in the 'Notable people' section. I suspect this is a link to the website of an advertising nature. Unless I can be convinced otherwise within the next 10 days, the reference to him will be deleted. Peter I. Vardy 16:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted accordingly. Peter I. Vardy 09:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image in Lead

At a recent change in layout the image of the Silver Jubilee Bridge was moved from its position at the top of the article to below the info box. In this latter position it means nothing. Its position at the top was not criticised by either the assessor for GA status or by the peer reviewer. I have therefore returned it to the top of the article where it gives more impact to the reader. Peter I. Vardy 10:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's now in the info box. Peter I. Vardy 11:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate

"Being close to the west coast and the Irish Sea, the climate is generally temperate with few extremes of temperature or weather. The mean average temperature in the years 1971 to 2000 was 9.4 to 9.7°C, which was slightly above the average for the United Kingdom[38] as was the average amount of annual sunshine at 1391 to 1470 hours."

I think the mathematical descriptions are wrong here. First of all what does "mean average" mean? I imagine it means the "arithmetic mean", so it should be called either the mean or the average.

Secondly, statements like "the average ... was 9.4 to 9.7" don't make arithmetic sense. The average is a single value, like 9.5. The met office maps cited group averages together into ranges for ease of visualisation, so all that can be said is the average temperature is somewhere in the range between 9.4 and 9.7. Not that the average temperature was 9.4 to 9.7. An average can't be given as a range in other words. Isn't it possible to find out what the actual averages for Runcorn are? Or perhaps you could take an average of the range, and say, for instance, "the average annual rainfall was around 805 mm". --Malleus Fatuarum 14:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments. The figures were taken from the Met Office website without further interpretation. Does anyone have the mathematical/scientific ability to make better sense of the figures? And does anyone know where the precise figures for Runcorn or Halton can be found? Peter I. Vardy 08:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are no figures available for Runcorn, then I'd suggest averaging the met office's range, as in "around 805mm". --Malleus Fatuarum 09:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Town Park

Just a very small thing. "... and an extensive Town Park created as part of the new town."

This seems a little odd to me. Is the name of the park "Town Park"? If it isn't, then why is it capitalised, and if it is, then why doesn't it say "... the extensive Town Park"? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the suggestion/correction — "an" changed to "the". Peter I. Vardy 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polythene

I've just discovered that polythene was discovered in ICI's Runcorn laboratories. Worth adding to the history section? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It was discovered in Winnington, which is in Northwich, not Runcorn. Peter I. Vardy 09:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

http://archive.thisischeshire.co.uk/2006/8/23/275816.html

[edit] Sketch map of Runcorn

I have edited the original sketch map I loaded yesterday to incorporate Peter I. Vardy's comments (copied below):

Could the Old Town centre be indicated; this is quite important in the context of the town and the article. I agree the railways are a bit complicated. Perhaps we could have the Liverpool–London line because it crosses Runcorn Gap parallel to the road bridge and this links up with the images. To the east of the town it is more complicated because the main branch of the West Coast Main line crosses the Manchester–Chester line. Perhaps it would be possible to include the latter (mainly because of Runcorn East station) and leave out the WCML.

The Old Town centre is now indicated (using Egerton & Church St as reference points, as it wasn't marked on my map). I have also included some of the railway lines, including the two stations. I've also refined the coast line a little on the River Mersey to clarify the Runcorn Gap.

However, the map now seems a little cluttered to me, especially as many of the labels had to be moved to accommodate the new railway lines, and unfortunately the main 'Runcorn' label falls inevitably on top of the railway. One solution might be to have two maps, one under geography lacking the railway lines, and another including the railways but with some other information removed under transport? The original map is still loaded at Commons (Runcorn_Cheshire_map.png [1]) if consensus prefers it. Espresso Addict 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it's fine as it is. OK it looks a bit cluttered at first sight but enlarged it's fine — it reflects the fact that geographically it is a rather complex town. Peter I. Vardy 08:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Pass

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Epbr123 17:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)