Jump to content

Talk:Staines-upon-Thames

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Staines)

Typo

[edit]

Hi I notice that under the chronology we have "1285 — Famous landmark, the London Stone, erected to mark western limit of the City of London's jurisdiction over the Thames". However the paragraph discussing this feature states the year as 1280. (A passer by)

Reservoirs

[edit]

Do the reservoirs to the north of the town not warrant a mention?

The reservoirs are technically in the parish of Stanwell despite the larger one being called Staines reservoir. But I agree, they are worthy of a mention. If I can decide which section to put them in, I might even type a few words myself. Robertf999

References

[edit]

Terence Dackombe

[edit]

Dackombe has been repeatedly added to the list of notable residents by 82.44.222.47 in spite of being a redlink. From (talk), they have an obvious conflict of interest; ie, they work for an agency that represents him.

It seems to me that any redlink should be removed from that list, but I'm mentioning it on the talk page first in case anyone without a COI disagrees. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To mollify this obsession by 'Pinkbeast' we will form a full entry that will, of course, remove the horror of the red link. We all hope that 'Pinkbeast' will consequently find life sweeter and less stressful. Best wishes from Rachel. Beyond that, in the context of the ills and troubles in the world, this issue feels rather insignificant ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.222.47 (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's insignificant, leave it alone. Of course, you don't think it's insignificant at all, because it's your job to promote him.
(Somewhat against my better judgement, I pointed them at the Article Wizard). Pinkbeast (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Staines-upon-Thames and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

It is normal to exclude people who aren't the subject of their own Wikipedia article from Notable residents sections like this one. The reason is very simple: we don't want Wikipedia to become merely a place for people to promote themselves or be promoted, regardless of notability. There are plenty of web sites that allow that, but Wikipedia is not one of them.

@Pinkbeast: you're right, obviously, but I wouldn't spend too much energy on this redlink entry until the underlying problem is dealt with: the paid COI editing. I suggest WP:COIN may be the place to go.

@Rachel: to be frank, you're giving your client very poor service by making him look vain even though as far as we know he probably isn't, and by pushing your promotion of him through sarcasm and demands to know what another editor has to do with Staines -- which is none of your business. If I were hiring someone to represent me (which I'm not), I'd fire anyone who presented me in such a poor light.

It's possible that Terence Dackombe may satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). A quick but not exhaustive google search just now wasn't conclusive. It's all right to create an article about him, but be aware that it would be tested according to Wikipedia's notability criteria and may be deleted. Until the article exists, Rachel, you should be the one to remove his mention in this article. You should not put other editors in the position of having to fight you to maintain Wikipedia's way of doing things. Stfg (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stfg - yes, seems fair. (Rachel)


Thank you. I'll fix it now, and take your suggestion of WP:COIN if reverted. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Pinkbeast: Well, it lasted for a while, but she's back. Go ahead with COIN if you like. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's been a trickle of idiocy at my talk page, so I fear I wasn't entirely surprised. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of this section

[edit]

Special:Contributions/92.238.95.87 has been repeatedly removing this talk page section. This was also the last edit made by the shill. Anyone hear quacking? Pinkbeast (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preparing for Good Article nomination

[edit]

Hi All!
I've been working on the Staines-upon-Thames article over the past month or so and would like to nominate it for a Good Article review in a few weeks' time. I'd be very grateful for feedback on how to improve the article further. In particular, I'd appreciate some input into refining the lead section and for any photos that might help illustrate the later sections. Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the page for a Good Article review. Mertbiol (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Staines-upon-Thames/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting first read-through. Comments to follow shortly. Tim riley talk 12:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Tim riley: I look forward to working with you again. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

I can see nothing in the article as it stands that would prevent me from promoting it to GA straight away: it is certainly of GA quality already in my view. But I offer you a few suggestions for tweaks here and there that would, I think, improve it. Up to you whether you want to follow them up or not.

  • Lead
  • "The first bridge across the Thames is thought to have been built by the Romans" – does this mean the first bridge across the river at Staines or the first bridge across the river full stop? Not clear.
 Done Have added "at Staines" so the sentence now reads: "The first bridge across the Thames at Staines is thought to have been built by the Romans..." Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Location
  • "magistrates courts" – could do with an apostrophe: you give them one later in the text.
 Done Missing apostrophe added. Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topography and geology
  • "Medieval" – here and later: not sure the word should be capitalised – the OED doesn't think so. Moreover it looks odd to capitalise Medieval but not Middle Ages, which our WP article capitalises throughout. (Afterthought: a blue link to that article from this one wouldn't hurt.)
 Done decapitalised all instances of "medieval" and have add a blue link at the term's first appearance. Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roman and Saxon
  • "54—96 AD … 73-75 High Street" – we have problems with number ranges, here and elsewhere in the text. In both these cases the Manual of Style would have us use unspaced en-dashes: 54–96 AD … 73–75 High Street.
 Done Have replaced all em-dashes and hyphens for number ranges with en-dashes. Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Staines in the second world war
  • Most unusual not to capitalise Second World War (or the First, later). True, The Guardian doesn't, but its aversion to capitals is positively phobic. Our Wikipedia articles certainly capitalise the terms, and I am sure you should here.
 Done All instances of "First World War" and "Second World War" capitalised.
  • UK parliament
  • "The town is in the parliamentary constituency of Spelthorne and has been represented at Westminster since May 2010 by Conservative Kwasi Kwarteng" – could do with an "as of" or "as at", to avoid WP:DATED.
 Done Have split sentence and rephrased to read: "The town is in the parliamentary constituency of Spelthorne. As of July 2022, it is represented at Westminster by Conservative Kwasi Kwarteng, who was first elected in May 2010." Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Staines" electoral division, … "Staines South and Ashford West" – here and in the following subsection the inverted commas look rather strange to me. I don't think they are wanted.
 Done Inverted commas removed. Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early schools
 Done Link added. Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Places of worship
  • "to those who died in the 1972 Staines Air Disaster" – earlier it is capitalised as "Staines air disaster", which I'm sure is better.
 Done changed to "Staines air disaster". Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to accommodate 280 worshippers and a sliding partition" – I think a comma before the conjunction would help the reader's eye along the sentence.
 Done Comma added. Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Culture
  • More em-dashes in date ranges where the MoS calls for en-dashes.
 Done All em-dashes replaced with en-dashes. Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literature
  • "Hostess Quickly" – not quite the way to title the character. In the text I have (The Globe Edition) she is "Hostess of a tavern in Eastcheap, formerly Mistress Quickly, and now married to Pistol". I think I'd just call her "the Hostess" as she isn't Quickly any more ("the quondam Quickly", Pistol calls her).
 Done Character renamed to "the Hostess". Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reservoirs
  • "North east" or "northeast"? We have the one in the caption and the other in the text.
 Done Changed "north east" to "northeast". Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • War Memorial
  • "The names of 196 people who died in the first world war" – if, as I assume, all 196 were men then use of a gender-neutral noun looks just a bit contrived.
 Done Changed "people" to "men". Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable residents
  • We've got further trouble with dashes in this section. The date ranges should be unspaced en-dashes, and if you want em-dashes in, e.g. "— born in Staines-upon-Thames" they too should be unspaced (MoS).
 Done All em-dashes replaced by en-dashes. Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I were writing this article, which of course I'm not, I shouldn't refer to the town as Staines-upon-Thames, but merely Staines, when referring to Furse and the others associated with the town before its name was changed in 2011.
 Done Instances of "Staines-upon-Thames" changed to plain "Staines" where appropriate. Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find to quibble about. Over to you. I certainly shan't bother putting the review on formal hold while you consider these very minor points. – Tim riley talk 19:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tim riley:. I think I have addressed all of your comments above. Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have indeed. I think this article more than meets the GA criteria, and, though I am not a specialist in articles about towns, this one doesn't seem to me to fall far short, if at all, of FA standard. If you take it on to FAC please ping me and I'll look in. Meanwhile, so far as GAN is concerned:

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Thank you!

[edit]

Thanks @Tim riley: for your prompt, diligent and thorough review. I hope our paths cross again soon! Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Staines-upon-Thames&oldid=1207671692"