Talk:Borough of Dartford

Untitled

This article is a bit disappointing, especially since there have been so many changes to it. It is very much of a "cobbled-together" thing, without any headings or seemingly any flow. History is mixed up with today, for example: and seems not to follow a chronological order. There are some sweeping statements - such as the one where "Dartford has become a dormitory town for commuters to London". I cannot believe this to be other than sheer guesswork: knowledge of the area will show that there are a wide variety of occupations in the borough which will need local employment. As a start there is the huge area alongside the Dartford Crossing ("Crossways") and that is just one of such areas. Of course a lot of people DO go on the trains at rush hour - but do they all go to "London" (whatever that may mean!)?

I don't have time at the moment to make any changes, but I would suggest that the classic arrangement of the article ought to be:

• opening statement - where it is and a brief summary of any really important facts (eg transport links via the Thames)
• history - bring together in chronological order all the info (and check that there isn't anything else vide the borough website)
• communications - include the ferry service to the continent (Dart Ferries); and Farningham Road is missed from the stations. Ebbsfleet station will be in Gravesham, not Dartford, although the line will tunnel under the Thames in the borough
• industry of yesterday and today (all those industrial estates must do something!!!) and - BLUEWATER
• important buildings in the borough: churches (not just in Dartford town), Orchard Theatre, Manor Gatehouse (Tudor) etc
• population figures; & other demographic facts
• other info - Mick Jagger Centre and so on

Peter Shearan 12:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• What is the relationship between the information in this article and the information in Dartford. They seem clearly to need separate articles, but also there would clearly be much crossover and duplication. Dartford is currently under peer review, and I am about to start expanding it as much as I can, but first it would seem sensible to decide which types of information go in which articles? Or whether all information goes in both. Jdcooper 11:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dartford peer review

The Dartford article has recently had an overhaul, and as follow-up has been nominated for peer review. Since editors to this article are likely to know something about Dartford as well, any edits you can make to the Dartford article or comments on the the peer review itself would be very useful. Thanks in advance! Jdcooper 23:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Borough of Dartford/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have included several comments over the past two years on this article, and have now had a stab at a rewrite. See my latest note on the article talk page. Peter Shearan (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 10:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Borough of Dartford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212152904/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/si/si2001/20013560.htm to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2001/20013560.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)