The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the old town hall in Godalming, Surrey, is nicknamed "The Pepperpot" (pictured) after its distinctive cupola?
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
"Godalming came to world attention in 1881, when it became the first town in the United Kingdom to install a public supply of electricity, and the first in the world to boast electric street lighting, driven by a dynamo at Westbrook watermill."
Have done some quick internet research and can find many references to Godalming's claim and none for Cockermouth. Does anyone have any evidence for this? Jon C
The Godalming generating station definitely deserves its own article if its priority can be verified. See Pearl Street Station. What is the source for the Godalming claim of priority, what date did it go in service, supplying how much electricity, and how long did it operate? This is too important a bit of history to stand without a verifiable and reliable citation. [1] says "But the initial supply to Godalming was only 30 incandescent lamps and three arc lights, and didn't last long." Thanks. Edison 21:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a relevant link at the Goldaming Museum's website- [2]. --Sean Brunnock 21:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edison had public demonstrated "dozens" of his electric lights around Menlo Park, New Jersey in the week following Christmas, 1879. "Edison, a biography," by Matthew Josephson, McGraw Hill, 1959.pp 224-227). The S.S. Columbia was lit with 4 generators and 115 lamps in May 1880. (Josephson, pg 237). A half-mile square area of Menlo Park was wired in 1880 in a test of the underground distribution to be used in New York City, and portions were lit in November 1880. The whole system, with a 120 HP engine and 425 incandescent lamps was fired up January 28, 1881 for at least 12 hours as a demonstration and test of operating efficiency.(Josephson, p247) Would that not precede the illumination of Godalming? Godalming has a definite place in electric utility history. Others had operated arc lights, but the dozens of Swan incandescent bulbs around town deserve some recognition. I'm just not convinced it had that great an impact on the electric utility industry, because of the small scale and reported short operating life. There is no indication that the bulbs, generation, and distribution methods used there had the potential to be scaled up much or that they influenced subsequent central station construction. Holborn Viaduct and Pearl Street seem to be more notable as models for the development of the industry. But I do want to see an article on Godalming. A map of the area powered and more stats are needed, and public domain or licensed illustrations. Thanks.
The whole question of firsts needs to be resolved and Godalming combined both public and private lighting in one undertaking and the reasom why Godalming is recorded as the first is that electricity was available to local consumers. Historically a date of 26th September 1881 is recorded when supply was given, this pre dates the Edison Holborn Viaduct supply of January 1882 (which pre dates his Pearl Street station of September 1882), and the Hammond Brighton supply of February 1882. I have a lot of information about Godalming , Edisons Holborn Viaduct and Hammonds Brighton. Aquizard 16:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a suggestion that we move the peperpot pic to the top right of the article ... what does anyone think? Personnally I like it where it is on the top left. Abtract 22:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:Godalming coat of arms.jpg[edit]
Image:Godalming coat of arms.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
The converted water tower, I believe is elsewhere. Evidence needed for Frith Hill location. SovalValtos (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frith Hill Area of Special Environmental Quality is in Godalming. The Water Tower is in Godalming. See here: Water Tower--Samesawed (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Samesawed The tower converted by Elspeth Beard is at Munstead in Busbridge parish so off topic for this article. There is nothing sourced that the Frith Hill tower in Godalming is converted.SovalValtos (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found this image in Commons of the Frith Hill converted tower Converted Water Tower, Frith Hill, Godalming - geograph.org.uk - 149409. Reliable sources should not be hard to find.SovalValtos (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quick check on Google street view, that tower is on the corner of Frith Hill Road and Knoll Road, Godalming. Viewd from Knoll Road. <https://goo.gl/maps/krGU3RUYTBMnz33t6> Listed building 1294172 Converted by Ron & Nicola Edge[1]Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the edit summary for this edit [3]User:Cladeal832 maintains that "Enton Hall is part of present-day Godalming and tons of sources have it's address as Godalming". It may be that a postal system uses Godalming as part of their address for Enton Hall but that does not mean it is in Godalming. In fact there are many settlements that use the post town Godalming as part of their address. It would be interesting to see one of the 'tons of sources' that is actually a WP:RS that discuss its location and state that it is in Godalming rather than Witley. The Ordnance Survey in their Election Maps [4] show it as being in Witley Civil Parish.SovalValtos (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit the postal address is Godalming. Unsure what's more to show. Why are Election Maps valid and postal addresses are invalid? Seems like an odd standard. Enton Hall, which doesn't have its own article, is in a rural area so it's always going to get referred to as near a town whether it's Witley or Godalming. As to RS, I'll just differ to the one cited in the article which has Godalming [since also trying to avoid OR] and Google Maps has it as Godalming too. Plenty of source show it as near Godalming. As a possible compromise, you can also add it to the article on Witley as well.
Postal addresses are not a good indication of geographic location as they are related to the post offices network of sorting offices (at least when it was set up). They were never intended to define locations as such and shouldn't be relied on in Wikipedia articles. Your links above all give the post town, not the location. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There does not yet seem to be a consensus for including out of scope material relating to Enton Hall. Let us give it a few more days for others to comment before it is removed.SovalValtos (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In simple English, You're wrong. Not one mentioned it as near the postal town of Godalming. It's simply near Godalming. Your inferences as to why they choice Godalming are immaterial. I don't understand your OR here. I cited a source [actually more than one] with Godalming and you didn't. Cladeal832 (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't cited a single source that says it is in Godalming, merely postal addresses, which is not the same thing. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every source cited has it as Godalming or near Goldalming. None mention your OR inference as being because of it's also the postal town. I regret even mention the whole postal town part since it's created this strawman arguement over postal towns. I was the one who used that as an example, but the source, which is valid and used on multiple other articles, has it was near Godalming and the original Enton Hall health farm in question referred to itself as being in Godalming, I don't doubt Enton Hall is also near Witley, but the original research by somebody here about civil parishes is a red herring to dismiss these sources does not meet the community standard for removal. I am simply differing to the source cited. Cladeal832 (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note again this is an article on Godalming, not Godalming Civil Parish. The statement of Enton Hall health farm being near Godalming as used in the source actually cited referencing the inspiration for the location of a quarter of Thunderball in no way contradicts Enton Hall's true civil parish or postal town or whatever else some OR finds. For people who remove content over claims of OR, don't seem to mind engaging it. Also consensus through unwillingness to engage when your point is discredited isn't a way to cite lack of consensus for removal. Cladeal832 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what? This article is about a settlement not a building and not about buildings that are outside the settlement.SovalValtos (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So your best argument is just so what. The major thing you're making a fuss about is that the use of the word near versus in and just showing it's within the standard to use near with a country house. Also this about using sources about the influences of the making a book which referred to the settlement since all refer to it as near GodalmingCladeal832 (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being confrontational and try and engage with other editors. Try and understand the conventions that apply to locations in Wikipedia articles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pot, Meet Kettle. But you aren't engaging and been confrontational. Last time you just delved into just meanspirited personal insult when you got it wrong rather than just apologize.[5] I have understood the policy and cited that policy repeatedly. I provide multiple sources to back it up. You and the 'other user' haven't cited any policy expect your personal opinions that the importance of civil parishes or the importance of title in ration to territorial designation or whatever.
You ignore my points and I worry will just try to play it off as lack of census which isn't how census is suppose to work. You haven't tried to engage [unsure how I'm suppose to engage with stuff your sources are about postal towns and I say postal town don't count but at least I tried.]Cladeal832 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to sense that there is a whiff of WP:CIR here. I shall remove the off topic material shortly as there is no consensus to include it.SovalValtos (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Competency isn't the same thing as differing to users who don't know Wikipedia policy. I actually believed you at first about OR and looked it up and say you were wrong. I'm sensing there was never any sincere attempt at discussion or comprise. You do not have consensus for removal and the guidelines for consensus show that if lack of consensus isn't reached, to quote, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit, so the page reverts back to the original way it was which these references to Dracula since you are trying to get consensus for removal. Again you've ignored any points I've made in good faith and ignoring reliable sources and the Wikipedia styles guidelines and haven't cited anything to counter it since this isn't a page on Godalming Civil Parish. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Being in Witley Civil Parish or not does not negate mention on this article i.e. Godalming#State primary schools (includes grant aided) quoting, Chandler C of E Junior School in Witley civil parish caters for around 330 children and Witley C or E Infant School. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Enton Hall material was boldly added in this edit [6] and then after some minor changes was reverted by me in this edit [7]. Rather than going to talk per WP:BRD the bold editor Cladeal832 replaced it, and simultaneously removed a Cit maintenance template without explanation [8]. The article will revert to the version before the bold addition with suitable adjustments for subsequent changes. Thank you for pointing out the out of scope material about Witley Schools. SovalValtos (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So again taking my efforts to make a case by citing by policy and other articles is just ignored to again make this about me rather than the information on the article. These edits were just minor, by your admission, and the policy on consensus is not that all and any edit must have to be the discussed on the Talk Page first and not doing so is not grounds for removal of both accurate and sourced information that comply with the style guideline. I added a source to a citation needed tag isn't the bold edit you seem to be portraying it to be. You should not be reverting without either engaging or offering any comprise nor cite actual policy for removal. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also odd that my edits are bold, but User:Murgatroyd49 and User:SovalValtos's repeated reverts (including after a Talk Page discussion began) are not mentioned or questioned. Also quoting BRD page, is an optional method .. process is not mandated by Wikipedia policyCladeal832 (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome for pointing out the structures and buildings in Whitley Civil Parish have been established as part of the scoop of this article. I've tried to compromise, but you simply stating this will be removed when you choice isn't very helpful or fostering of community engagement. I know this user and now they won't admit a mistake while ending up personally insulting me so yes I was reluctant to engage, but since so much of the talk page is just trying to make a case and being dismissed or ignored, I don't believe I haven't made a an effort to engage. Nor it is a bold edit to add something neutral that fits into the community style guidelines and sourced. So why are you so keen on deleting this again beyond me just being a bad contributor which isn't really grounds? Cladeal832 (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove as it would a violation of the guidelines. You can't just remove info because you and your pal subjectively think its trivial or outside the scoop of an article. Those assumptions been shown as incorrect through citation of Wikipedia style guidelines and reliable sources while responses such as beginning to sense that there is a whiff are not grounds for consensus to remove. I get the case seem to be just I'm not a good contributor for things you and your pal have also done, but I am kind of wondering if you have read the article since it included mentions of several buildings and structures noted as being near Godalming including including ones manor house estates in other civil parishes [i.e. estate in the east of Godalming civil parish and manor house is on the higher land which is now in Busbridge Civil Parish] including Whitley so the point about the scoop is moot. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When you have finished being insulting, the simple matter is that Enton Hall is not in Godalming, but Witley, which has its own article. See BBC. Also the nearby Enton Mill is in Witley, see Historic England. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I disagree with you on the removal and your understanding of Wikipedia policy while noting I feel ignored or dismissed, but I don't mean to be insulting, but if you found it to be so, I apologize as I was only trying to emulate your actions towards me. As mentioned already, structures and buildings in other civil parishes with their own article including Witley are mentioned in this article i.e. Rodborough School which is mentioned both in this article and the Milford article or King Edward's School which is mentioned on both the Witley and Wormley articles. Simply being or not being in Godalming civil parish in not grounds for removal. The cited sources mentions Godalming included the health farm itself. Cladeal832 (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your special pleading and your persecution complex, the simple matter is that Enton Hall is not in Godalming under any meaningful definition of the term. Your persistent efforts to get references to Ian Fleming into as many articles as possible on the flimsiest of pretexts looks increasingly like deliberate promotion. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make this about me, yet again, that isn't how this works for the Talk Page on Godalming. I have shown how the buildings and structures including country manor houses with different civil parishes have been mentioned on this and other articles with any issues and simply applying that same standard so as not to just use a definition where I am just deferring to your personal tastes and whims. Cladeal832 (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the self-appointed style guide made-up by User:SovalValtos and User:Murgatroyd49 makes no sense upon thinking it through. I mean why not go to every article to find anything not in the proper city limits to delete it such as Detroit#Airports ought to be removed because the airport isn't in Detroit, but Romulus, Michigan. Source after source cited mention Enton Hall health farm in the context of it being near Godalming. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The simple matter is that Enton Hall is not in Godalming under any meaningful definition of the term. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So all these reliable sources are to be dismiss or ignored because...
There has not been any support from any editor for the inclusion of the material on Enton Hall added by Cladeal832 so I am now removing it. I trust there will not be any edit warring. Best wishes. SovalValtos (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One can't edit war alone and my edits are not just automatically bad nor are your edits just automatically good. As I already pointed out, you can't do a removal not because I am not pleading for special treatment, but as per the consensus policy guidelines. You can't just demand consensus and ignore any attempts to reach it. Nor it there a requirement to win a popularity contest What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. What has been dismissed so far as pleading for special treatment, all I requested was acknowledgement that the old health farm itself listed its own location as Godalming and the course cited has it as Godalming, whether it's in or near. Doing OR with maps or just ignoring it doesn't change it. I don't want to assume, but maybe neither of you have read Thunderball since it describes in detail how the health farm would pick up its clients at the train station and also in the detail the trip from there to the health farm which the advertisement for Enton Hall also confirm as what happened at the real health farm. Cladeal832 (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
The simple matter is that Enton Hall is not in Godalming under any meaningful definition of the term. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This reasoning doesn't add up to much as I pointed out in the Detroit Airport example. And this article doesn't state anything about Enton Hall being in Godalming, just that it's near and the health farm listed it's own location as Godaldming in-line with the source cited WP:HIJACK. Cladeal832 (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The simple matter is that Enton Hall is not in Godalming under any meaningful definition of the term. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is the American state of Georgia so should it be deleted in the opening as well by this reasoning. It's been established that is your opinion, but Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus the local consensus of editors can't be used to negate broader consensus of the community standards and guidelines.
The broader consensus is that any reference in a piece of culture and the sourced cite given it as being near Godalming. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
So where would one send a letter to Enton Hall or is the postal service without any meaning or if I looked up Enton Hall on Google Maps and it shows it in Godalming which I suppose by the rational being presented is also without meaning. The point is both inaccurate and moot.Cladeal832 (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from the civility guidelines, take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. and No matter how frustrated you are, do not tell people to "grow up" Cladeal832 (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As requested to try to discuss this civilly, I get position in that Enton Hall is in Witley Cvil Parish possibly making it outside the scope of this article, but as mentioned near the beginning of the Witley article the village of Milford is in Witley Civil Parish yet buildings and structures specifically noted as being in Milford are mentioned throughout the Goldnalming article and that is just one example of buildings and structures noting as being in another civil parish mentioned in this article so I think it's an unfair standard that my edit is singled out. Also to avoid original research or Wikipedia:HIJACK I'm simply deferring to how the sources cited refer to Enton Hall as either in or near Godalming including Enton Hall farm health itself[12] as well as the real estate listing [which includes a whole section about location and Goldalming][13] and the biographies of Ian Fleming including the one cited. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm not presented my case as if my edits are flawless or above scrutiny, but I simply disagree with the various rationales presented for their removal. According to Wiki guidelines, waiting some period of time while refusing any engagement in consensus building is also not grounds for lack of consensus. Stating my lack of competency and my lack of quality edits is also not grounds. User:Oshwah offering a different solution to your request isn't the same time as ignoring it. Nor according to the guidelines is consensus a prerequisite to edit when it conforms to style manuals and established precedent. By the logic presented by others here, two editors could join together on any low interest article and write, 'we two agree' to include or exclude anything and everything and that would be that. While I admit I have been skeptical since the rationales for removal of my edits you've admitted you find trivial seems to keep change from irrelevant to out of scope to inaccurate, I have made yet another good faith effort to build consensus as well as citing Wikipedia guidelines and citing other articles and examples with in this article and been ignored. Please do not engage in an edit war over it. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in guidelines is civil parishes used as the one and only criteria and the sourced cited mentioned it near Goldaming and Enton Hall health farm itself gave its location as Godalming so trying to avoid original research and also shone that country houses on Wikipedia are frequently referred to as near a town or village even if that communities that may not be the closest. Cladeal832 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped counting after finding twelve examples within this article of structures mentioned which are in technically in another civil parish since they are adjacent to Godalming, so again I ask why is my own edit being singled out? Also their is repeated justification used as out of scope, but citing the guidelines on Wikipedia:Out_of_scope#Identifying_the_scope
Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular POV on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular POV.
Use the most general scope for each article you can.Cladeal832 (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the novel, one of the characters, Arthur Holmwood, succedes to the title of Lord Godalming. While superficially a connection, few British hereditary titles have any actual geographical significance -EG the Duke of Edinburgh, to be topical. It is years since I read the book, is there any actual geographical link in the book such as the family house being notionally in the town? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found this link [14] helpful. Searching through the book's text there were 89 finds, none of which referred to the town. I see no reason to include the book in the town article.SovalValtos (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting, While superficially a connection. Despite the choice of adverb, odd to just admit there's a connection. There are already articles on geographical locations mentioning when they were used as titles of fictional nobility and the standard is just any reference, not with qualifiers such as is it superficial or not.
In simple English, while there may appear to be a geographical connection, in fact there isn't. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding 'In fact' doesn't make it so. You admitted there was a connection. Adding a dismissive adverb doesn't change that nor does ignoring the guidelines. Mocking the ability of someone else to understand simple English may also be a violation of the civility guidelines for Talk Page interactions. Cladeal832 (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is references to a settlement, not, as in this case, to a title. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it's difficult to keep track of the different standards simply just created every other time. It's about territorial designation [quoting the article which directly refutes the previous point and title or location having no relationship to each other, (territorial designation) is also an integral part of all baronetcies]] and what we are discussing it an article about a UK settlement and this is the guideline for that. Cladeal832 (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you two the same person? I was kind of suspicious after you both made the same error when you removed the second half of a sentence, but neither time added a period [15][16]Cladeal832 (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You weren't even familiar with the policy on OR with regards to works of fictions, so I might be a bit more humble about what is and isn't Wikipedia policy. I'm don't have a pretense that I'm a great know-it-all contributor so I don't just assume I'm right and you're wrong, but I also don't just assume you must be right and I must be wrong either. I cited multiples examples i.e. Crowborough#Popular_culture (I should point I didn't add this nor did I add the Dracula reference) that you 'two' are just ignoring any engagement to just start red herring discussions about me. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Thanks @Llewee: for taking on this review. I look forward to working with you. Mertbiol (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mertbiol, I have suggested some changes to improve the article. Please use the Done template or strikethrough to indicate that a problem has been dealt with and add any comments/questions after the points. Once these issues are dealt with I may have some further suggestions. I will leave the lead until last. Thanks, Llewee (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"incorporates a small local centre on Farncombe and St John's Streets." I assume this is a visitors center but it may be good to add a bit more clarity.
Done It's local shops. I have rephrased to "a small cluster of local shops", which I hope is not over-interpreting the source. Mertbiol (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Commerce and industry"- is their any information on the more recent history of the local economy since the 1950s and '60s.
Unfortuately not. I was hoping that there would be some information in the Farncombe and Godalming Neighbourhood Plan, which does have an economy section (pages 21 to 25). Unfortunately it doesn't really add very much - there's mention of the retail areas in Godalming town centre and Farncombe, which are already covered in the Geography section, but everything else is very general. Mertbiol (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The busiest period for the navigation was during the 1810s, when timber, flour, and goods made of iron were shipped from Godalming, but after the arrival of the railway in 1845, it went into sharp decline." - Are you sure about the 1845 date? Elsewhere it says 1849.
Done Thank you for spotting this. This is a typo. I have corrected this. Mertbiol (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The basic layout of Church Street, the High Street and Bridge Street are thought to have been established by the 13th century and may be pre-conquest in origin."- clarify or add a link to the Norman conquest.
Done I have added the link. Thank you for spotting this. Mertbiol (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"National and local government" - This could do with more information about local politics. For instance, has it tended to vote Conservative or Labour in the past?
The historic voting information is already discussed at the borough level article - Borough of Waverley. Ward boundaries change on relatively regular basis (in fact the Waverley ward boundaries changed for the 2023 local elections), so discussing political trends at a level below the borough council or parliamentary constituency is difficult. Mertbiol (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's understandable Llewee (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Demography and housing" - This section probably needs the most work. It consists of two now quite out of date tables mainly about housing. Try to add a wider range of statistics (e.g religion, age, ethnicity). The 2021 census linked here could be a good place to start. It would also be good to include written prose about housing and the local population if possible like in other sections of the article.
The 2021 Census information is not fully published. Information is available at the District level (i.e. Borough of Waverley), but the data for civil parishes is not out yet. (See [17] - type "Godalming" into the "Local Area Report" search - you'll see that only the 2011 census data is available.)
My feeling is that these tables are good enough for GA status. My other GA Surrey town articles have included the same two tables and have been accepted by the reviewers. Once the 2021 Census data is fully released (this will be by the end of the year), I will go through and expand this section. (There will need to be a wikiproject discussion on what data is useful to include.) Mertbiol (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Including two graphs both about housing seems like an unusual choice. Why isn't their any other information from the 2011 census?--Llewee (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of adding other information from the 2011 census if the 2021 census data is to be released in a few months' time. Again, my feeling is that these tables are good enough for GA and the reviewers who have looked at my previous nominations have agreed. When the data is available, I will expand and update with the information from the 2021 census. Mertbiol (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Godalming has a claim to be the first town in the world to have a combined public and private electricity supply." - clarify what is meant by "has a claim"
There are various places around the world whose residents claim that their town has was the first to have a public electricity supply for street lighting. The Godalming claim is not particularly strong - there were other demonstration/temporary installations elsewhere before it and the scheme only lasted for three years before the town went back to gas. So Godalming wasn't the first ever and wasn't the first permanent. The only claim that holds up is that the supply had a private element (the mill lighting) and a public element (street lighting) to it.
I don't really want to get bogged down in this article with the minutiae of "who came first", but if I take the claim out completely, someone will re-add it (and will probably make the erroneous claim that Godalming had the first ever public street lighting). So what to do? My feeling is that the current wording works fine and that yes, "has a claim" is a little woolly, but it is preferable to say that briefly, rather than getting into a long discussion about the history of street lighting - covered in the street light article (which doesn't even mention Godalming). Mertbiol (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would clearer to say something like "Godalming is one of multiple towns which claims to be the first town in the world to have a combined public and private "--Llewee (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that's not what the source says. Crocker (1999) is very careful not to overstate Godalming's apparent claim to fame - unlike some of the less reliable sources. She chose her words deliberately and I feel that I have followed her lead with what I have written:
"The significance of this hydro-electric installation at Godalming lies in the fact that as well as providing street lighting and serving the mill, it was also intended to make the supply available to the public."
I really don't want to get into the realms of comparing the competing claims of different towns - that's the job of the street light article among others. Crocker does not mention the claims of other towns. I'm sure you understand that I am trying to avoid a big can of worms here. Mertbiol (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Godalming Ambulance Station, in Catteshall Lane, is run by the South East Coast Ambulance Service.[161]"- this probably belongs in the healthcare section.
I would prefer to leave this in the emergency services section - as it is a "999" service. Mertbiol (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks a bit odd to have one line about ambulances following a long section about fire engines but its a personal preference.--Llewee (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Maintained schools" - It may be worth mentioning that their are X many state maintained primary schools. Its a bit confusing having no mention of primary education in this subsection when it is mentioned in the sections above and below it.
Current primary schools tend to fall beneath the threshold for notability. The mention of "historic" primary schools is because the earliest schools in a settlement are always at primary level, so these are notable as being the first. Mertbiol (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fine Llewee (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"During the First World War, the house was used to accommodate Belgian refugees[307] and the lake was used as an ice rink by Canadian soldiers, who were billeted at Witley Camp.[103]" - It may be useful to include a link to Belgian refugees in Britain during the First World War.
Done Thank you for pointing this article out. I wan't aware of it. I have added a link. Mertbiol (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Llewee: Thanks very much for your comments. I have made some changes to the article and have added responses where I haven't been able to agree on your recommendations. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Llewee: I have responded to your two points above Mertbiol (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think some aspects of the article are ideal especially the demographics and housing section. However, overall the article is of a high quality and the issues are understandable and fine for a GA. I have put the article through earwig which is linked here. No issues their. The article is well illustrated and their doesn't seem to be any issues with copyright. The article uses a good range of sources many of them academic. Obviously I can't access all of them but my spot checks on some suggested that they say what is claimed. No issues with lead.--Llewee (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
The discussion above 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.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... that after the decline of its cloth industry in the 17th century, the town of Godalming in Surrey began to specialise in the production of hosiery(stocking frame pictured)? Source: [1][2]
caption=The Pepperpot, Godalming
ALT1 ... that the old town hall in Godalming, Surrey (pictured) is nicknamed "The Pepperpot" after its distinctive cupola? Source: [3][4][5]
Overall: The first hook is not interesting nor stated directly in the article. The focus should be on the Pepperpot hook which seems better. It needed an immediate inline citation and that has been done so it's good to go now. Andrew🐉(talk)
@Andrew Davidson: Thanks for your comments and for reviewing. I have added the citations in support of the Pepperpot hook to the article as requested. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. The review has been passed now. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion to add the TV programme that starred Kate Winslet. Scenes filmed at Busbdridge Lane, Holloway Hill and Azets accountancy in Catteshall. 86.146.66.32 (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doing...
Done template or 
Done Thank you for pointing this article out. I wan't aware of it. I have added a link. Mertbiol (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
b (inline citations to reliable sources): 
The first hook is not interesting nor stated directly in the article. The focus should be on the Pepperpot hook which seems better. It needed an immediate inline citation and that has been done so it's good to go now. Andrew🐉(talk)