Talk:Wormshill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Wormshill is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This article, or a prior version of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors on 21:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC). 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.

Copyedited by Unimaginative Username (talk) – 05:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Proofread by Finetooth (talk) – 21:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] This is a beautiful little article

Really nicely done! I appreciate the sparse style and the wonderful pictures. --Mattisse 01:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The article looks good, but I advise reading User:Epbr123#Grammar and layout checklist to see where things need fixing. Good luck with the GA nomination. Epbr123 (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you combine some sentences and short paragraphs into longer paragraphs -- lots of short paragraphs is what they refer to as "chop" in the Feature Article Review. They do not like lone sentences, a sentence all by itself, except perhaps very occasionally in an article for effect. It is preferable to have a variety of paragraph sizes for "flow". I can help you with some of that layout checklist stuff if you would like. Mattisse 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review - on hold

Hello. I'm placing Wormshill on hold for GA to allow users to ammend some quite significant concerns/issues. The article would've benefited from going to Wikipedia:Peer review first really. Furthermore, WP:UKCITIES has some recommendations on layout, prose, and reference material too. The challenges I have identified this stage are:

  1. In the lead, Maidstone is a Borough rather than a District; district shouldn't be capitalised anyway.
  2. "some ten miles south" - "some" is a grammatical redundancy (it's un-needed). Consider using a conversion template for distances.
  3. Sittingbourne (in the infobox) should be CAPITALISED (per Royal Mail), and unlinked.
  4. Per WP:MOSDATE, standalone years (like say 1086) should not be linked in articles. Only link dates where the date is out in full (e.g. 1 April 1974).
  5. In Development and demographics (itself an awkward title - see WP:UKCITIES), asian shouln't be linked to British Asian (some identify as South Asian). It should however be capitalised.
  6. There are some one sentence paragraphs, which are a no-no per WP:MOS. Try to merge them into bigger paragraphs.
  7. Per WP:HEAD, section titles should not begin with the word "The" (The church and rectory).
  8. Consider putting the distance and direction to London in the infobox (add |london_distance= ).

On a more positive note, I can see that this is a well loved article. The images are of a high quality as is the reference material and style of referencing. It's just not quite there yet though. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. This is just what I needed. Will have a go at fixing the above and Matisse, thanks for the offer - it'd be great if you could check back in a few days and pick up anything you think I'd have missed. Appreciate the help guys. Dick G (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, have started work on a rewrite here: User:Rjgibb/Sandbox, grateful for any comments or the odd bit of copy-editting. Cheers Dick G (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
That's looking like a vast improvement! Once you feel you're happy with it, take a look at WP:UKGEO which lists some featured articles about settlements (such as Chew Stoke, Shaw and Crompton, Blyth) for any additional/advanced features you can borrow. Feel free to give me a shout on my talk page when you're ready for a re-review! Looking good! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, rewrite complete - including citations. Will put it up for Peer Review and flag it to WP:Kent Dick G (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

Will do, intermittently over the next couple of days, if not sooner. Unimaginative Username (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Sounds like a beautiful little village. Good luck with FA, and let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA pass!

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    A consise, well balanced and very readable/informative article! Well done!

-- Jza84 · (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image removal Image:OldPostOfficeWormshill.jpg

As I've already explained to one user on my talk page I have removed the historic post-office image. I've done this per policy, so please don't reinsert it until the concerns are met.

Wikipedia uses images if they meet one of two criteria 1)they in the public domain or licensed by their owner under an applicable free-use licence OR 2) they are copyright images that meet our fair use critera. This image may well be in the public domain, however, the uploader has not indicated that ion the image page, and has not provided a source that we can investigate. The uploader has rather indicated that the image IS copyrighted but justified for use under a fair use claim. However, the use of the image does meet the fair use criteria as a) the IMAGE itself is not discussed in the article b) the item illustrated could be illustrated by a free image of the modern post-office. Thus the image currently may not be used.

If it is in the public domain - someone needs to change the licence information on the image page - and provide a source to indicate the validity of the claim (where it was uploaded from). If that's done, the image can be replaced.--Docg 23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I shall address this in due course. The discussion here is relevant to the contested inclusion of the image. I would appreciate other editors' input into the debate. Dick G 23:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it best we keep the discussion here - it leaves a record on the relevant article.--Docg 23:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


To be specific, it fails fair use criteria No.s 1 and perhaps 8. For 1 "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" - an image of the modern post office would serve the same encyclopaedic illustrative purpose. "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect, or adequately conveyed by text without using a picture at all?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.". But, as I say, if you want the image, it is probably better and easier to establish it as being in the public domain.--Docg 23:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. My difficulty is that the date of the image can't be ascertained with any real accuracy and for that reason I was reluctant to say it was PD under the wiki guidelines as I can't say the "author" died more than 100 years ago. I don't believe a picture of the post office today serves the same purpose but the criterion is seemingly objective so will not debate further. In some respects, the self-certifying of images makes a nonsense of the policy on uploads - I wish now I had uploaded it as a free image as doubtless it would never have been challenged. My 'crime' was simply to err on the side of caution and say that copyright may subsist. As a post-script, I had not meant to suggest the discussion was taken to your talk page, was just flagging its content as relevant, hope that's clear. Dick G 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
No, your caution is completely correct and warranted. Wikipedia's whole approach is caution. Sometimes that restricts us, but it is the price of our determination to be a free encyclopedia. If you can confirm the images is in the public domain, you can simply change the licence on it. But if you are unsure, then we leave it.--Docg 00:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Having re-read Wiki policy on this, I am confident the image is in fact in the public domain under UK copyright law. I have re-tagged the image and updated the image summary page accordingly and intend to reinstate to the article in 24 hours, unless I hear compelling argument to the contrary.Dick G 23:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions from the copy-editor

[edit] Present/past status as agricultural community

"The village has been an agricultural community recorded as far back as the Domesday Book... " Is the intent here that the village has been an agricultural community (but is now something else), or that it is and agricultural community that has been recorded for X length of time? I imagine the latter, in which case a suggested revision is "The village is an agricultural community that has been recorded as far back as the Domesday Book... " Might also consider revising to "The village is an agricultural community that has been recorded as far back as 1086 AD... ", as the Domesday Book might not be familiar to non-UK readers (like this one). That way, the intro is clear to everyone, and you do have the Domesday reference in the first main section. Unimaginative Username (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. I prefer the latter edit which references the date - I agree The Domesday Book might not be universally known. You are correct in your assumption that it is still an agricultural community, albeit somewhat less so than it has been in the past.Dick G (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If "universally" includes this user, it isn't :) and probably many others on this side of the Pond. Made the edit as agreed; however, if you like, "agricultural" could be changed to "a predominantly agricultural..." to reflect the change over time. Unimaginative Username (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Surface-gathered flint boundaries

Not sure of the meaning. The flint was gathered from the Earth's surface, then used to make boundary lines? Or boundary markers? Pardon my denseness! Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The compound adjective "surface-gathered" was taken from the report referenced in the footnote. I took that to mean that the flint (a hard stone) was gathered from the surface of the earth (it frequently lies in loose piles in the area) and used to form boundaries for settlements or livestock enclosures. The actual use of the boundaries is a bit of a leap of faith on my part so avoided going into detail for fear of OR. Happy to be guided as to the best way to phrase.Dick G (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting article. Either the writer or the transcriber had puzzling constructions, e. g. "claywithflints" as one word. (Reference.com gives "clay-with-flints"). Similarly, the article had "surfacegathered" (sic, one word) and "surface gathered" (no hyphen for the compound adjective". It needs a good copy-edit :) Back on topic: This is a bit beyond the scope of copy-editing, but from a brief glance at Reference.com, it appears that indeed, flint is often mined from subterranean deposits, so if you have sources that it is also found loose on the surface, then that is surely the distinction that was intended, and perhaps we should just clarify the wording a bit. As for the boundary use, Bannister says,

"Within the wood itself are low rounded banks made of surface gathered flints and topped with soil (Figure 3, & 4). The banks generally lie at right angles to the parish boundary and wood bank, and appear to run beneath them. The boundaries enclose areas of approximately 1 acre and have the appearance of the remains of a prehistoric field system."

So perhaps something like "ancient field or boundary markers formed from pieces of flint that were lying loose on the ground" ... or something. Just a rough draft for your consideration -- again, don't want to overstep the bounds of copy-editing. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so how about: "A landscape survey in the area identified woodland to the north of the village as having contained tools and possible ancient field boundaries which were likely constructed from un-mined flint". Although I appreciate I may have just replaced the tricky "surface-gathered" with "un-mined"...Dick G (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If I'm reading it correctly (probably reading too much into it), only the boundary piles were specified as un-mined, not the tools. Next try: "A landscape survey in the area identified woodland to the north of the village as having contained ancient flint tools and what appeared to be flint boundary markers, the latter apparently gathered from loose-lying surface flint". (And breaking off this session for the nonce. More later.) Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of labouring the point, I am not sure that tools would be mined but boundary walls (or markers) gathered from loose stones. I think it's fair to assume no mining took place - indeed there isn't extensive evidence of local flint mining (as compared to the denehole mining of chalk for example). That said, I like your formulation - the reader can draw their own conclusion as to the source of the flint for the tools :) Very much appreciate your input thus far. It's been lonely working on this one and nice to have some assistance! Cheers Dick G (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, now that I'm an expert on flint (haha), "surface-gathered" makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, this editor has a nasty habit of trying to make articles as dummy-proof as possible.
The hypothetical possibility in mind was that perhaps tools required some higher quality of flint, whereas markers could be any loose rubble. Just as you might want quality bricks to build your home, but use any old rocks for your garden. If the sources show that there is no evidence of flint mining in the area, that's fine -- go with that. Back at ya, Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Br/Am difference

I imagine there are both pluses and minuses to having an article written in one reviewed by the other; this may be one of the minuses. "...(Norwood) is given to the farm at the north of the village." Common US-age would be "at the north end of the village" or "in the north part of the village". If outside the village, the usage is the same as in the first sentence of this section, "...woodland to the north of the village. Perhaps this is similar to the Br. "We're flying to the South of France"? If "at the north of the village" is standard Br., kindly educate this En-Am user -- slogging through the article on Br-Am differences looks like a few months' work. Sorry! Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"North end of the village" is fine. I imagine "north of the village" is widely accepted by Br users for either context (i.e inside or outside of the village limits) but happy to use the Am approach if it is clearer as I don't think Br users would have strong feelings either way...Dick G (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Very gracious! However, if "at the north of the village" is accepted Br-En., I believe the policy is not to change to suit Am. readers, but rather to stay with the style of the article (and for once, no one can dispute that that style should be UK!). Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No change. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another one

This editor is going to get quite an education in En-Br :) Please know that these questions are not arguing for a change to the Am., but just making sure it's not a typo. "The village is ... south east from London." Is "south east" standard Br.? US custom is one word, "southeast" (or "northwest", etc.), hence the question. Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In adjectival form it's usually hyphenated in En-Br (per Wiktionary). So, uh yeah, a typo :) Dick G (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done I did see that these were hyphenated in the table that followed, so greater consistency is good. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One more (consistency?)

"A significant part of the exposed woodland to the north east was felled ..."
"A designated ancient woodland lies to the north-west of the village."
Should "north east" be hyphenated as "north-west" is a few sentences later, or is there a distinguishing usage rule that I could learn? Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't see there's a rule that warrants the distinction and hyphenating is the preferred option - please feel free to conform :) cheers.Dick G (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post office

"second-oldest surviving post-office building in the country.[35] The post office briefly moved..." Is "post office" normally hyphenated or non-hyphenated? Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it should be separate, not hyphenated. Thanks Dick G (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blacksmith's Arms

"The Blacksmiths Arms, parts of which date back to the 17th century..."
"Today, the village retains only the Blacksmith's Arms..." Does the pub's name have the apostrophe, or no? Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The official website of the pub says no, as does the pub sign at the front of the property. The possessive form is used fequently for identical pub names throughout the UK but this one chose not to. Thanks again Dick G (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General stores

I have been changing this to "general store" where singular is indicated, but I'm afraid I might have tripped another Br/Am wire after seeing the very definitely singular "being run as a small general stores". The link to General_stores#United_Kingdom seems to support the use of "store" for singular (as in the US), although perhaps the article was written by a US-centric writer. Bottom line: Does En:BR support "a Post Office and a (single) general stores"(plural), or am I correct to edit to "a general store"? Unimaginative Username (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Original newspaper article (and source for that particular content) uses "stores". Hope that helps.Dick G (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess what I'm still unsure about is whether "a general stores", meaning one single establishment, is standard UK. If so, I learn yet again. If not, the source article could have a typo (it happens) in which case, we either correct it as we summarize summarise it, or if we quote it directly, we add (sic) to show that the error is reproduced from the original. Do you wish me to recuse myself in favor of a UK-centric copy-editor? no offense taken! Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "general stores" is the correct term - not least because Am-En has more residual antiquity in it and the phrase is atmospheric since "shop" is the modern term. A "general stores" refers more to a shop (typical in a small rural community) that provided "everything" for the households in the village. Let's stick with that and see if we get shot down. To be honest I prefer the detachment than a non Brit brings to the piece - the article is probably more scrutinised than by a Brit reader who'd probably skip some of the more colloquial phrasing.Dick G (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Pick out any of your huge collection of American Western films, set in the latter 1800s, and there is always a General Store (singular) in the heart of town, usually next to the saloon :) However, they've pretty much disappeared in the US, replaced by convenience stores and Wal-Mart. Anyway, if "stores" is the singular term in the UK, then
No change. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dover patronage

"... the parish continued to pay a castle-guard to Dover Castle ... by virtue of its previous patronage." As this is the first reference to Dover Castle, the reference to "its previous patronage" is unclear. Perhaps Dover's patronage should be mentioned in the preceding chain of title? Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree there is some confusion. Unfortunately I don't recall that the sources indicate where the obligation to pay a castle-guard actually began (i.e. under whose patronage the custom started). The reference to "previous patronage" therefore is intended to say that the obligation to pay castle-guard was a left-over or a residual obligation that continued, even when patronage was conveyed to Christ's Hospital. Again, happy to be led as to how best to phrase.Dick G (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Keeping in mind that you're dealing with a Yank who has near-zero knowledge of English land law: Before the 1712 reference, Hasted says, "William de Dene died in the 15th year of Edward III. (i. e. 1342 - ed.) holding these manors with their appurtenances, of the king in capite, as of his castle of Dover, and paying to the ward of it. "In capite" is defined as having title directly below that of the King. What I make of this, in my outsider's POV, is that the land was held, by the King's authority, of course, within the jurisdiction and protection of the castle at Dover (I take "as of his castle" to mean "as of the King's castle at Dover", but what do I know?). Therefore, the holder of this land paid to the King, or to his agent at Dover, for Dover's military protection of the land. This tradition apparently continued at least to the time of Hasted, hence, "It still pays a castle-guard rent to Dover-castle." My outsider's understanding is that this was separate and distinct from the "patron", or string of patrons, and their patronage. An analogy would be: One might own one's home, but still pay taxes to the local government for police and fire services to protect the home. The patrons owned or held the land, but paid the Dover castle for protective services. So, "previous patronage" would be revised, with some reference to the traditional castle-guard. (Hasted uses "castle-guard rent to refer to the moneys paid as a substitute for supplying conscriped knight/soldiers, I believe.)
Of course, I could be totally off base here, and probably am. Perhaps persons knowledgeable in the land law of the time could shed light? Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm! Hasted is not the easiest to decipher and he has been known to get things wrong so I'll approach with caution. I have to say though, I don't think you're far off. The patronage element is probably separate from the castle-guard. Patronage attaches to the land as a benefit to the owner, whereas castle-guard attaches as an obligation on the owner (in terms of payment) but also a derived benefit in terms of protection. I think we can probably describe the ownership and rights better but it's not for this article to expound the intricacies of castle-guard or patronage - I would prefer the wikis to do the work on that score or is that a cop out?Dick G (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No, not a cop-out at all; agree completely that this article isn't about those things. It was "previous patronage of Dover" that was the question, so how about "... the parish continued to pay its traditional castle-guard (or "castle-guard rent") to Dover Castle." Omitting any connection between "Dover" and "patronage", with links so that readers with questions about what castle-guard is can go there. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's do that. Would prefer "castle-guard" to "castle-guard rent" however...Cheers Dick G (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hollingbourne rural district

Red-linked. Any way to fix? Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I could create a stub but I am not the expert in local government administrative units, let alone anachronistic ones! Dick G (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Have created new article Hollingbourne Rural District, built from existing content on Wikipedia.Dick G (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Talk about a fast fix for a red-link! Most editors just remove the link :) Well done, Sir! Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ordnance survey units

"Ordnance Survey maps at 191 metres (627 ft)". Manual of Style says to stay consistent throughout the article with putting one unit (metre/feet) first, but I see that the Survey has adopted metric as its unit. Not sure what to do about that. I'm content to leave as is, as I looked up the Survey, but some editor is going to complain about the "inconsistency of which is the primary unit". Shall we chance it? Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Brit usage as to units of measurement is not uniform so distances are commonly imperial whereas official records for most units of measurement are metric (per UK metrification in 1970s). I would chance it. Dick G (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done OK, no change. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yew tree

"some 20 years later" The Manual of Style prefers more specificity as to the date of the source cited. "A Forest Department survey in March 2007 showed..." or, perhaps, a newspaper article: "As of March 2007", or "As of early 2007" - whatever degree of specificity is appropriate. Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, a tricky one. There are no newspaper articles (to my knowledge) that reference the post-storm village's condition specifically since the storms blighted a wide area. Could we point to other evidence e.g "recent images at Geograph..." or "aerial photography at Google Earth indicates the village shows no obvious sign of the damage"? or are we fighting a losing battle to keep the phrase? Dick G (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing the source is OR? It's interesting to know that the village has recovered from such a fierce storm, so any source that meets the usual criteria would be good to have. I was looking for analogies at Honduras and Cayman Islands, but recovery reports there aren't well-sourced either. Perhaps you can outdo them :) Logging off for now, Unimaginative Username (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
ok, so I did some digging. The original phrase is OR I guess - I used to live there and know what the place looked like pre- and (20 years later) post-storm and it's not much changed! However, aware of the need for verifiability, this site is not a great reference but it describes the local woodland (clearly woodland near Wormshill) as being "less dense than before the 1987 hurricane" but appreciate that doesn't really help as to offer evidence of recovery. This site describes the replanting programme in south-east England generally but does not reference the village - although it indicates tree density is higher now than at the time of the storm. The Forestry Commission began a replanting programme after the storm but there are no specifics as to Wormshill or its surrounds on the information available - if only the web were up and running in 1987 we'd doubtless have sources galore... Dick G (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't suppose you'd care to snap a photo or two? The OR guidelines give much more latitude to self-published photos than to words. If your scrapbook has any pictures from right after the storm, you'd have a perfect "then and now" comparison. Just a thought. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I now live about 12,000 miles away from the village and missed the opportunity to get those kind of pictures when I last visited. I may be able to get some from family though...Cheers Dick G (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That would be fantastic. References to the general devastation of south-east England from the storm, coupled with recent pics of the homes, woods, etc. looking apparently normal, would seem to be a pretty solid case for the statement about recovery - especially given the previous mentions of the town's exposed position. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is the only open item, so I'm marking the copy-edit complete. Hope you can get either the pics or any other source, although from the ones you've cited, it seems unlikely to be controversial. Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vicar

"The current vicar is the Reverend John Smith." The Manual of Style prefers the date of the statement over "current": "As of December 2007, the vicar was ..." since, of course, archaeologists will be reading your fine article a thousand years from now, and they will be surprised at the longevity of the Reverend Mr. Smith :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy for you to reference the date. My only fear is that editors often feel the need to change the date monthly to keep the article looking "current". I'll resist that urge... Dick G (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Right you are, but the problem is worse if "currently" is used, because then you have to have a hotline to the Church to let you know the minute anything happens to the Rev. Mr. Smith, (retires, etc.), else the article is wrong until it's changed. At least this way, it's a correct statement no matter when it's read. Someone reading in July 2008 sees "As of Dec 2007", and that's a true statement.

The problem "could" be avoided by describing the long-standing church without naming a "current" Vicar. Agreed, for example, that in the article, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, readers expect to see "currently Gordon Brown", and not "as of February 2007 was Tony Blair".  :) However, we may presume that the PM article would be edited instantly by any of thousands of readers upon change of PM, while you're probably solely responsible for the Vicar of Wormshill :) Whether the name of the Vicar is "notable" or important enough to include and maintain is not within this user's province. Whatever you decide as far as retaining it, but just wanted to point out the WP guideline and reasoning. Cheers, Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Changed to "as of December".Dick G (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy

Parts of this section aren't clear to me. (it was saved for last) Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spectrum

"However the principal employment sector within those industries..." (Which industries? Farming is the only activity that has been mentioned so far) "... for village residents remained at the bottom of the socio-economic spectrum with most residents employed as 'labourers and servants'"... Employed as labourers and servants on farms? Or are some employed on farms and some as labourers and servants in some other industry or some other community? Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-worked so as reference is simply made to the socio-economic category thereby attempting to remove the ambiguity you have identified. The census data is not sophisticated enough to identify specific industries. While reasonable conclusions can be drawn (some of them admittedly borrowing from local anecdotal evidence) from this information, granted it is in a grey area of OR.Dick G (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prosperity

"Further census data however indicates the village was at least prosperous enough in the late 19th century to warrant the construction of a number of new properties, representing the largest growth in the village for the next 100 years" Do the census data tabulate income and wealth, or is this prosperity a *conclusion* drawn from census data that show merely the construction of new properties? For example, if City dwellers in London chose to build a country home in Wormshill for the weekend get-away, that might not represent any prosperity of Wormshill's permanent residents (other than those employed to construct the homes).

Are "properties" homes? Farms? Businesses? Industries? Not known? The "prosperity" part is not clear as to meaning or intent. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, difficult to justify this too in its current form. The data refers to 'homes' and a reasonable conclusion might be drawn from correlating data say, for example in the 1901 census, where the occupants of specific households are identified, with their profession. This suggests that the houses were principally constructed to house increasing numbers of "labourers and servants". Local knowledge also indicates the houses that were built at that time were small cottages - aside from a small number of properties, none are of the size to indicate they were constructed by people who intended to live anywhere other than the village. Again this is unverifiable - unless you chose to walk through the village itself and draw your own conclusions. Coupled with overwhelming evidence of the nation's propserity at the time in the midst of Empire, it is hard to imagine there was not at least some filtered prosperity in the village. I will attempt to re-work, perhaps you could cast an eye over the result. Cheers Dick G (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I put the censuses in chronological order, listed the facts, and left the conclusions up to the reader. See how you like it. If this is going too far beyond the scope of a copy-edit, feel free to chop my hand off at the keyboard. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the references and links. I was certain that I'd butchered them in the process of revising. Thanks for fixing. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dormant

"While the farms continue to employ from the village, today Wormshill is largely dormant with residents employed in nearby towns or commuting further afield..." If the residents are working somewhere, whether farms or commuting elsewhere, "dormant" (inactive, at rest, in abeyance) doesn't sound right. Does "dormant" refer to business activity within Wormshill itself? E. g. "The farms continue to employ some village residents, but there is little other employment within the village itself; many residents are employed in nearby towns or commute further afield to London." Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

- Dormant is a term in common parlance in Britain to refer to commuter-orientated communities (c.f. Commuter town). I believe this was the intended use here. --John Gibbard (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The article that you pointed to, Commuter town, uses "dormitory town" rather than "dormant". Haven't heard of "Dormitory town" either, but it is easily recognizable as equivalent to the US idiom, "bedroom community", and could be linked to the article you pointed to for US-ians who can't make that translation. Dick G, what sayest thou? Edit: This online dictionary, which usually lists common idioms in both Br and US, doesn't have this meaning for "dormant", but links "dormitory town" to the desired explanation. Unimaginative Username (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, seing as I wrote "dormant" in the first place.... "dormitory" makes the same point in any event. Suggest use "dormitory village" piped to commuter town. Cheers Dick G (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Y Done Unimaginative Username (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the population?

Is is there? Am I just missing it? Mattisse 21:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, it's in the infobox (first item) and also in the Demography section (see table, last set of data under the 2001 census). Thanks! Dick G (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SSSI Designation

Looking on the Kent Landscape Information System pages and the Natural England site I'm not convinced there is an SSSI inside the parish boundary, the nearest seems to be on the Hollingbourne Downs. Suggest this is removed until it can be validated. Wormshill does sit within an SLA (Special Landscape Area) which appears to be a locally-applied non statuatory landscape designation John Gibbard (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Click on the lat/long at the head of the page- this takes you to the Geo Hack tool. Click on UK government MAGIC map. This shows all SSSIs. This confirms that the nearest is in Hollingbourne. ClemRutter (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit comments

I'll drop comments in this section as I come up with them. I'll also make edits directly if I think they're uncontroversial.

  • The second ref, to the Norwood website: I think it would be nice to get a more reliable source for the derivation from Woden. I notice Frank Stenton makes the connection in his Anglo-Saxon England, and you might want to add a book cite to him -- *{{cite book |last= Stenton|first= Frank M.| authorlink = Frank Stenton|title= Anglo-Saxon England|year= 1971| location=Oxford|publisher= Clarendon Press|isbn=0-19-821716-1|pages=100}} is the cite form if you want to use it. The problem with what you have is that the sequence of derivation (here via "Woten's hill") looks right but really should be cited from an Anglo-Saxon scholar, rather than the lord of the manor. In addition I don't see the form "Wodensell" in the web page. Stenton doesn't give a form (you can see what he says via Google Books), so you might just want to cut that clause if you don't have another source, and simply assert that it's derived from Woden.
    • Wodensell came from a pamphlet (which I no longer have) from the church in the village. Accept it's not readily available on the web although it may well be in one of the hard texts that I have been unable to get hold of...Dick G (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      • The pamphlet reference in this article [12] from Maidstone Borough council makes reference to "Woden's Hill", stating a 13th Century origin. Their source is not cited but adds evidence? -- John Gibbard (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Done added council pamphlet and detail. Dick G (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I also don't particularly like the "placing the site" wording. Here's an alternative wording that cuts the "Wodensell" assertion -- see if you like this: "Wormshill was listed under the name Godeselle in the Domesday Book (1086). The village is thought to be much older, with the name being derived from the Anglo-Saxon god Wōden (a version of the Norse god, Odin)." and cite Stenton at the end of the second sentence instead of the website.
    • Done A sensible formulation. Many thanks Dick G (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The statement that the village population grew steadily until the 1920s is at odds with the table lower down the article, which shows a peak at the 1871 census.
    • Done Fixed. Dick G (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What's the source for the statement that the Hundred of Eyhorne still exists? I don't see a direct citation for that, and it's surprising enough that a cite would be good.
    • Done Referenced. Dick G (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I looked at the source for the sentence about offroad vehicles placing the ancient woodland under threat; that's a picture showing a byway that will eventually be used by off-road vehicles, but it doesn't mention a threat. Where does that come from? I think this is something you should have a citable source for.
    • Comment I guess it's verging on OR. The byway is wrecked (related Geograph images show the rutted/swamp-like tracks) and vehicles are encroaching on the woodland which the track runs through - no paper sources or web sources really say that but there have been parish-level meetings about it. Regrettably the minutes of those meetings aren't published. How can we address that? Dick G (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately I think you're right; it is at least synthesis. If you have pictures of the tracks, I think that would suffice as evidence that the off-road vehicles are used. The threat to the woodlands, as opposed to the existence of off-road vehicles, has to be asserted in a reliable source. Are there local papers that might mention such a thing? A Maidstone paper with online archives?
        • Done in part Ok I have added further images and restricted commentary to the track, rather than the woodland. Dick G (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • When you mention the existence of Home Farm on old maps, it would be nice to cite one of the old maps -- not so much because the information is controversial in any way, but because the map name/number is a useful reference for anyone who wants to follow up and look at the map. This isn't critical if you don't have access to the maps at the moment.
  • Wormshill Court…is a manor house: is it the building that has always been the manor house of the parish? Do we know? I thought you might be using the word in the general sense of a large country house, but because of the discussion early in the article of what a manor is, I think we should be precise here. If we don't know it's the actual manor house, let's just call it something like "a large country house".
    • Done Have re-worked. It's likely that this was the site of the manor house of the parish since no other feasible sites exist and it is centrally located however I have not found a published source that says so. Dick G (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Looks good. This may be being over-cautious, but over such a long period of time it's quite possible that the old manor was somewhere else, so I think the new version is better. Mike Christie (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The note about the National School says "although it was dissolved less than 100 years later". This sounds a bit odd; 100 years is a long time, so the "less than" doesn't seem motivated. And why "although"? I think it would be better to say something like "it was dissolved by 1972" or whatever date we have that we know is an endpoint.
    • Done in part Hard to know when the school was dissolved since no sources actually record its closure. It was certainly still open in 1909 although the OS maps are incomplete for the early part of the 20th century. Have re-worked. Dick G (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Last one. In the lead, you say largely unchanged in the past two centuries. Do you mean population? If so I think it might be best to cut it -- 251 to 137 population in forty years is quite a shrinkage, though of course it didn't continue. If you don't mean population, what's the intended meaning?
    • Done The fields and woodland surroundings are for the most part unchanged in the past 500 years. That statement is made in the Lost Landscapes trail guide so I'll reference it that way.Dick G (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

More to come. That's everything. Once these are fixed I am likely to support at FAC; I agree with Finetooth, below, that your web cites should be updated in a few places. Mike Christie (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, would you prefer me to strike my comments above as they're dealt with, to keep track? Let me know and I'll keep it up to date. I agree that the first three points are dealt with now. Mike Christie (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you put in some effort on the cites, and as far as I can see they're all in shape now. I'm heading over to FAC to support; this is a very good article. Thanks for an interesting read. Mike Christie (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Just wondered if some of the unlinking has been more extensive than required? I noted that the general stores, village hall and so on were unlinked - in the former's case despite previous discussion about the correct Wiki link (Br-Am difference between 5.3.2 general stores above) from a previous editor. Given the parochial nature of this kind of article, doesn't such wikification provide a little context? Not a critcism on the current CE, just a discussion point. -- John Gibbard (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Good point -- I hadn't noticed the discussion above. I've relinked "General store"; I am agnostic on the question of whether it should have an "s" on the end or not. Please relink anything else you think is necessary. Mike Christie (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proofreader's comments

I think little villages are terrific. I started from the bottom of the article, and I'm working my way up. I added a couple of en dashes to page ranges in the references. Now I'm seeing what seems to be overlinking of the citations. Reference 45 is an example. The title is reasonably linked, but I see no reason to link Maidstone Borough Council; the title link already goes to a Maidstone Borough Council page. I see quite a few links that I think should be unlinked in the Reference section. If you agree and you trust me to do it, I'll de-link a bunch of these. Finetooth (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I found the style guide on this one quite confusing. Happy for you to trim out excessive linking. If I see any problems I'll let you know. Glad you enjoy the subject matter, thanks for stopping by Dick G (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll work on those links. The main idea behind the linking guidelines, I believe, is to help the reader. That requires a somewhat subjective assessment of what's likely to be helpful, what's likely to confuse, and what's likely to be redundant. Meanwhile, here's another thing to consider about the reference section. It's generally good practice to add as much available source information as you can to the blanks of the citation templates. I see a number of references in Wormshill that are more incomplete than necessary. For example, citation 60, the last one, gives the title and publisher only. It should have the access date; that is, the date you looked at the web page and recorded the other information. I see other citations in the reference section that are missing access dates that should be added. (You don't have to try to remember when you accessed these pages; just access them again to make sure the links are good, and add the current date.) Also, I think you could add 2007 for the publication date of citation 60 since that's the copyright date on the web page you've linked to. These two dates tell future readers that the link was still alive on such-and-such a date and that the web page was updated through such-and-such another date. In some circumstances, this information could be useful. Finetooth (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I filled in the missing two dates on citation 51 (Postbus) by clicking on the link and having a look. These are not difficult fixes, but I see several more. Finetooth (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I fixed some more of the citations like the one for the Blacksmith Arms. I've got to sleep. Perhaps you can work on the others in the meantime. I'll come back tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully Done. Perhaps you could let me know if you see any other refs that still need work.Dick G (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proofreading done

I'm all done. I didn't finish adding data to all the citations that need some. Tracking each one down and hunting for data is a bit tedious, but many hands make light work. I'll leave the rest to others. I should add that I don't think Wormshill can pass FA until the citations are all fixed. In any case, I liked working on this article, and I wish you good luck as the FAC continues. Happy New Year. Finetooth (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

Thanks to all who have stopped by in the last day or so. A fantastic effort - thanks very much. I'll take on the discussion points over the next few days. Happy new year and thanks once again. Dick G (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mid Kent Light Railway

Not wishing to derail (pun intended) the FAC progress I thought it might be wise to consider some revisions around the Bredgar & Wormshill Light Railway (BWLR) content? This information currently sits within Landmarks but the importance of this detail is clear for both transport and recreation. There was orignally supposed to be a station built in Wormshill to serve this railway (originally called the Mid Kent Light Railway) connecting the Medway ports with London via the important fruit growing regions of Kent, the BWLR Wikipedia page is sadly light on history. I have added an example of the sort of statement 'required' on the pages for nearby Ringlestone. Wondered if this article's primary contributor, Dick G, could have a look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gibbard (talk • contribs) 11:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure the Mid Kent Light Railway is anything more than the whimsical product of the imagination of the BWLR enthusiasts. I saw this a few months back and tried to dig up some more on it - as an engineering undertaking I thought it would certainly have been recorded somewhere. Nothing came up (on Google at least) for any of the key terms or individuals mentioned in the history. That, combined with the statement on the website itself "The Bredgar & Wormshill Light Railway only has a short history extending back to the mid 1970's. But here is an imaginery [sic] history, the product of a fertile mind of what might have been" leads me to believe we are being led up a (narrow-gauge) dead end. Dick G (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the faux history appears to suggest a Lord Braithwaite as Lord-Lieutenant of Kent. This assertion is an error: the Lord-Lieutenant of Kent in 1897 was Arthur Stanhope, 6th Earl Stanhope, a "Braithwaite" has never held the title. Other blanks include no mention of "Bazallan's 'Survey of Kentish Agriculture'" or the "Kent Local History Papers". Dick G (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Quite, I feel pretty foolish for not reading through the page adequately! An email from BWLR to me explains the fabricated history in more detail. This is an end to the speculation --John Gibbard (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 17th Century Map

Point of information, that the map of 1636 doesn't show buildings other than the Court Lodge and church should not imply there were no other buildings per se. It was common practice to focus only on 'important' structures to reduce the cartographic effort during that time, lower-class peasants didn't really warrant any illustration :) --John Gibbard (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yards

Hi User:Bluap. I agree with you that "feet" is not necessarily better than "yards". I'm trying to find a way to make "yd" more clear without violating the WP:MOS suggestion that we should "... in the main text, give the main units as words and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses; for example, a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter..." The "convert" template does this automatically. It would be easy enough to change "yd" to "yards" by hand, but this would violate MOS. I wikilinked "yd" this time around. I believe it is the first instance of "yd" on the page, and the link makes it easy for someone unfamiliar with the abbreviation to click and find a definition. Does this seem reasonable? Finetooth (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windmills

Is it worth mentioning the two windmills near Beddington (½mile NW of church) marked on the 1819-43 OS Map and mentioned in Coles Finch's book Watermills and Windmills? Mjroots (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Was not aware there were previously mills in the area - I have not seen the 1819-43 OS maps. Sounds fascinating. Only problem is I don't recognise the name "Beddington" - could this be Bedmonton? If you have the books and the relevant information, by all means please add it to the History section. Many thanks Dick G (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Would think it is Bedmonton - 1819 is nearly 200 years ago and place names do change over time! Mjroots (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed they do. Was just concerned that the primary source might be confused (there's a Beddington near Croydon after all) as records and names are often mixed up. Will do some digging just to be sure... In the meantime, feel free to add the content you have Dick G (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of references

Call me picky if you want, but I think it'looks better if all references run in numerical order - [1][2][3][4][5] rather than [2][5][4][1][3] Mjroots (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Only one occurence I think (in 'Economy'); now changed. Thanks for spotting. Dick G (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demography, Economy and Early History

I have been reading Dan Tuson's excellent book The Kent Downs which makes reference to neighbouring Frinsted's declining population in the late 19th to early 20th Century. This is explained by the considerable agricultural mechanisation and subsequent rural depression of the period. I think this is worth mentioning for Wormshill as it ties-in with the demographic data this article presents. However, should this information sit in Demography, Economy or in the relevant chronological section of History? Over to you Dick G :) --John Gibbard (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There is some overlap between all three sections however I take the view that history should deal with specific identifiable events, demography should present the raw data and economy uses that data and adds context. Hopefully the new content blends in and is still FA standard... Dick G (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)