Talk:Lewes/Archive 2

Merge proposal

I am floating this so that it can be discussed. The Bonfires article could then have a specific paragraph about Lewes, as I suggest above. Please let me know your thoughts on my talk page. Peter Shearan (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lewes Pound

As a reader of Wikipedia, I was wondering if an editor would be willing to mention the local currency that is going to be launched? Also, Lewes had its own pound in 1895, according to this artcle:

http://consumerchampion.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!DAD574CEBE107D1A!2003.entry

Edit: here is another website you could refer to:

http://news.uk.msn.com/odd-news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=9533442 86.13.13.200 (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For myself, I'd be inclined to wait a wee while and see how it goes. I haven't yet been offered a Lewes Pound in my change; who knows, maybe tomorrow? It was, however, on the local BBC television news, and if there is actual interest, it might be worth including a brief mention, to be expanded if the scheme turns out to be successful. Other opinions? --Molly Mockford (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lewes Pound was featured today on the norwegian evening news, so I would guess there is enough interst for an inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.106.23 (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to have taken off well (and changing hands for up to £12 on eBay!). I'd say go ahead now, write a paragraph on it - because now it can be in the present tense, not the future tense.--Molly Mockford (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is also featured in one of Sweden's largest economy newspapers ("E24") today.

They also mention it being on CNN and gives reference to the website of the project.

The project's website is: http://thelewespound.org/

85.225.176.180 (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.^[?]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 20:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]