Talk:Woking
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Woking article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
| Woking 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 1, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
| Barnsbury Estate was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 August 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Woking. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
| The content of Borough of Woking was merged into Woking on 18 April 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| Text and/or other creative content from this version of Woking was copied or moved into List of people from the Borough of Woking with this edit on 4 June 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Section sizes
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A fact from Woking appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 March 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Woking | This page is an interest of Wikiproject Woking. |
Employment and industry
Should be mention of Telewest, BAT and McClaren, but they are the only ones I kno about. ANyone who lives there should be able to expand. Rich Farmbrough, 23:16 21 December 2006 (GMT).
Clarified the rather amateurish McLaren section that existed heretofore. I'm usually happy to leave well enough alone, but the paragraph that was there was a mess. - Patrick in Astoria, 17 June 2009, about 10:30 EDT.
History
Query
Formatting
Merger discussion
Request for photographs
Preparing for Good Article nomination
Woking Borough Council
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Woking/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 17:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch,
fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig shows 29.6%, so violations and plagiarism unlikely
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Comments
- On criterion 3b: some notes seems unnecessary, and should probably be removed. These include numbers 5 (brick colour), 7 (Woking and Sutton manors), 14 (compensation for lack of commons), 23 (Sherlock Holmes story), 25 (electricity pylon), and 26 (legality of cremation).
- Additionally, 9 (King John gives Sutton), 11 (locks on the Wey), 15 (church design/consecration), 22 (crater on Mars), and 27 (picture description) could be incorporated into the text.
- Note 17 (Necropolis golfers) I'll allow because it made me laugh.
- I have removed the notes requested and incorporated material into the main text where required. Mertbiol (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- On 1b, I'm specifically considering MOS:LAYOUT, especially MOS:OVERSECTION:
Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading.
- I do not feel that level-2 sections such as "Notable buildings and landmarks", or "National and local government" warrant so many individual sub-sections.
- I have removed all the subheadings from the "National and local government" section and have reduced the number of subheadings in the "Notable buildings and landmarks" section. Mertbiol (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
One more comment: the history section says "Woking was held by the Crown until 1200, when King John granted it to Alan Basset.", while the notable buildings section states "The first manor house on the site of Woking Palace is thought to have been built by Alan Basset, who was granted the manor by Richard I in 1189." Please clarify.
- Thank you for spotting this. I have checked the sources. All of those published in the past 20 years say that it was Richard I who granted Woking to Basset in 1189. Crosby (2003) follows the Victoria County History (1911) in saying that John was responsible. In my experience, the VCH does occasionally get things like this wrong, so I have gone with the more recent sources. Mertbiol (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm putting the review on hold for a week. Please ping me when you feel you've addressed the issues. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: Thanks very much for your feedback. I think I have addressed everything that you have raised. Please let me know if you have further comments. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Mertbiol, I do rather like what you've done with the notable buildings section. Might I ask you to consider what you feel could be done in other sections vis-à-vis MOS:OVERSECTION: the Parks, Education, and Transport sections especially? Just a recommendation.
- Another thing: I don't suppose there is any usable information from the 2021 census? It seems a shame to have everything sourced to a decade-out-of-date survey.
- Finally, I've forgotten to do my usual source spotcheck, so I'll do that soon.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Source spotcheck (10 random citations)
- 52 fine
- 79 AGF
- 102 AGF
- 139 fine
- 189 AGF
- 252 this seems to be for Church of St Mary the Virgin, not St Nicholas' Church in Pyrford
- 282 fine
- 319 fine
- 320 AGF
- 372 fine with 371
so that's five fine, four AGFs, and one oopsie. I'll check a couple more accessible sources:
- 116 page number needed
- I have added the page number
- 226 fine but should have |url-status=dead
- 256 fine
@AirshipJungleman29: I think I have addressed all the points you raised. Please let me know if you have further comments. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Passing now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks very much @AirshipJungleman29: for your review. Thank you also to @Murgatroyd49: for making a special trip to Woking last summer to take a set of high-quality photos for the article. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)



