Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Runcorn/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 04:56, 3 September 2007.

Runcorn
previous FAC

Since the previous nomination, all the comments made have been addressed: sections have been modified where appropriate; the article has been reorganised according to the recently revised advice in WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements; and the whole article has been copy-edited. Peter I. Vardy 16:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. This is an excellent article, and the issues I raised in the previous FAC have been addressed in full. Rebecca 05:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. It looks like a good article, though it suffers in places from a stilted prose style, with sequences of choppy sentences and repetitive sentence structure. I am perplexed to find - under the heading Physical Geography - a description of transportation routes, housing density, and distribution of industry. It might be nice to add a little more about the New Town, particularly as the original architectural projects (1967-1977) were designed by James Stirling, a world-renowned architect; these housing complexes were torn down in the 1990s and replaced by a new New Town. The history involved is interesting and is presumably of some significance to the area. Pinkville 17:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Since the last nomination the article has been fully copy-edited (by a former professor of English) and in the process many sentences were split. 2) Including details of the built environment in "Geography" is in line with the advice given in WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. 3) During the previous nomination the excessive size of the "History" section was criticised, so it was reduced.  To add what is suggested would lengthen it again.  And would it be possible to give advice for relevant sources for this information?  I could write it with my own knowledge (I lived through it) but would be unable to give citations and it would not be written from a NPOV. 3a) Last time the capitalization of "New Town" was criticised. Peter I. Vardy 21:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Most of the article flows well, but, for example, the paragraph describing monuments and sculptures could probably be refined so as to avoid such dry lamenesses as: There is public sculpture in the town. 2) The geography that is described is not "physical geography", it is some version of "human geography" - and apart from the housing density and distribution of industry, I don't believe a numeration of expressways qualifies as "geography" in any meaningful sense. 3) I'm only suggesting a couple of sentences - and furthermore, one doesn't limit content merely because of some arbitrary proscription: if there's interesting and pertinent content to add, add it. I'm happy to provide a couple of referenced sentences to add what I know on the subject. 3a) I wasn't making any point about the capitalisation of "New Town", though, of course, the term has no specific meaning in any context but the UK, and so capitalisation seems reasonable. Pinkville 01:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) The reference to public sculpture has been deleted. It is of no importance in the town and I cannot find citations for it.  It was only included because the old (now obsolete) guidelines advised its inclusion. 2) The heading "Physical geography" has been deleted so that human geography can be included.  The expressways are not enumerated; of the five named expressways only the Central Expressway has been included.  And this is to act as a reference line from which to name and locate the old settlements and the new areas which physically constitute the town. 3) Two sentences have been added to describe Stirling's unfortunate development in the new town. Peter I. Vardy 08:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good, and the geography section is certainly better. Just a stray thought, wouldn't the following be a more pertinent and amusing excerpt from the Runcorn Ferry:
 * Now Runcorn lay over on one side of stream,
 * And Widnes on t'other side stood,
 * And, as nobody wanted to go either place,
 * Well, the trade wasn't any too good.


 * Or maybe that's just me... :~) Pinkville 13:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments. I was too sleepy (for other reasons) to go through this, so started at the bottom, and quickly found that the bibliography wasn't in alphabetical order. So I sorted that out. The arrangement within each bibliography entry strikes me as a little odd, but it makes sense so that's fine. A handful of the items are a bit underexplained by pedantic standards, but all but one (which I've marked with a nasty template) are OK. &para; Then I jumped to the top, and there read: .Its population in 2004 was 61,252. Excuse me for making a point, but this strikes me as ludicrous. It's pretty obvious to me that with a population of this scale, people were rapidly being born, moving in, moving out and dying. Thus (i) the figure is unlikely to be accurate to the last person whenever it was made, and (ii) the figure is likely to have been different a week before or later. I did not bother to check this at www2.halton.gov.uk, as I'm pretty sure that it's there: it's the kind of thing that websites, even "serious" ones with content supplied by earnest, educated adults, solemnly say. However, WP doesn't have to propagate the sillier details of its sources. I suggest instead over 61 thousand. -- Hoary 14:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Thanks for the comments and for arranging the bibliography into alphabetical order &mdash; I didn't realise this is how it should be done (Wikipedia is a learning experience!). The Helsby reference is a booklet which contains no details of publication and no date (hence "n.d."). It consists of reminiscences rather than scholarship so I have deleted it. 2) I agree the precise population figure is a nonsense: it is taken from the website and is a mid–year estimate.  I have amended the sentence to reflect this. Peter I. Vardy 16:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Having slept on it, I have again changed the lead. The "precise" number has been reinstated with the qualification that this is an estimate.  This reflects accurately what the source says without attempting any interpretation &mdash; and I think it now makes sense.  "About" and "over" are words too vague to use at the start of the lead, in my opinion. Peter I. Vardy 09:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose—Sub-professional writing. Here are some of the problems in the lead, which indicate that the whole article needs considerable copy-editing.
 * Second sentence: en dash where a hyphen should be. Read MOS.
 * MOS breach concerning conversion precision: "16 miles (22.5 km)".
 * Overlinking: dictionary terms such as quarrying, shipbuilding, engineering ... they're not piped to focused, relevant articles, so why?
 * Ungainly repetition: "the prime industries were the chemical industry". Then "industry" × 2 in the following two sentences.
 * "A new town was built to the east of the existing town in the 1960s and 1970s. Farther to the east, areas of private housing have been established.[5] This has resulted in a doubling of the population of the town ..."—Remove "of the town". Does "This" refer to the previous one or two sentences? Do you mean: "A new town was built to the east of the existing town in the 1960s and 1970s, and farther to the east, areas of private housing have been established;[5] this has resulted in a doubling of the population of the town ...". And does ref 5 refer to one or two statements? We need precision at WP.
 * ""there has been little integration of these two communities; at present there are separate ... bus stations"—Wow.
 * The last sentence of the lead is aggressively ordinary, and also also contains a redundant also. Tony 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Above points addressed, other than a further round of copy-editing. Peter I. Vardy 13:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me know when that has been done. Tony 10:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is lots of well-organised and well-referenced information here; however, I felt further improvement was still possible.
 * I felt that the article was under-illustrated. The middle section in particular has several screenfuls without images. There are lots of relevant geographic images at Geograph which could be inserted. Another historical graphic would be valuable. It might also be interesting to include an image of one of the notable Runcorn people.
 * A sketchmap would be interesting.
 * Is anything more known about the history? That section felt rather abbreviated to me.
 * The culture section felt a bit thin, and focused on very recent film/tv &c. For example, is there any reference to Runcorn in literature? Any famous paintings of the city?
 * I agree with those who state the article needs another round of copy editing, to amalgamate a profusion of rather choppy short sentences and to tighten some bland prose. The widespread misuse of the n-dash where there should be a hyphen also needs removing. Espresso Addict 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The following have been addressed: more images added, including a notable person; history section expanded with a graphic; inappropriate n-dashes replaced with hyphens (I think I have found them all). The culture section reflects the thinness of Runcorn culture &mdash; I am not aware of any references in literature (other than Albert Ramsbottom) or of any paintings of note. Peter I. Vardy 21:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sketchmap also now included (with thanks to the author). Peter I. Vardy 17:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Further round of copyediting requested. Peter I. Vardy 17:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now:
 * "Political representation" section starts in 1832. How about before that?
 * Why is there all this information about roads, bridges, and railway lines in the "Geography" section? That belongs under "Transportation".--Carabinieri 01:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Political representation – will try to find out . Done. Peter I. Vardy 11:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia says that Transportation geography is a branch of Urban geography, itself a branch of Human geography. Peter I. Vardy 10:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But why is there a "Transport" section, but also information about transportation in the "Geography" section. Considering what you wrote, it might make sense to mave "Transport" into "Geography".--Carabinieri 19:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements advises sections on both "Geography" and "Transport". Geography's a funny subject and some people advise it no longer exists as a separate discipline.  So there are bound to be overlaps.  I've tried to describe the "geographicial" parts of the transportation system of the town in one place and the "nitty-gritty" of bus timetables and such like in another.  Different people will have different opinions.  I think it sort of works.  Maybe you don't.  One thing I have learnt about Wikipedia in the short time I've been involved is that consistency is not one of its merits (yet).  If you follow one person's advice, someone else will criticise you for doing it.  It keeps us all conscious, I suppose. Peter I. Vardy 19:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, 2, unformatted citations, publishers not identified. Pls format the citations correctly.  Examples can be found at WP:CITE/ES.  All sources need a publisher, all websources need a last accessdate, date and author should be given when available. As long as this article has been at FAC, citations should be formatted by now.  00:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs)
 * Book citations reformatted. This article has been through a peer review and a previous FAC; I am amazed that such a basic "error" should not have been pointed out to me earlier.  I think all the websources are OK – if you spot any that are not please specify them. Peter I. Vardy 10:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not :-) Sources still aren't identified.  Examples only (almost all need to be fixed):
 * Runcorn and Widnes Weekly News, accessed April 27, 2007
 * has a publisher, but no date, author, or article title, when in fact, all are available. Should the link go dead, you are only telling the reader something was published at some unspecified time under some unknown title by an unknown author in the Runcorn Weekly news. How will a reader locate the article? It should look contain all of these pieces (you don't have to use the cite template):
 * Another example:
 * ^ Dfes Primary Schools 2006, accessed July 4, 2007
 * should include:
 * All sources need accurate title, identification of publisher, and author and publication date when that is available. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 12:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I have changed all I can find giving info on authors, publishers and dates. Peter I. Vardy 16:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just had another look, and most of them are still lacking publishers. Here's one example only:
 * ^ Selwyns. Retrieved on June 28, 2007
 * It's actually Selwyns Transport Solutions: About Us—Profile, published by  Selwyns Travel Ltd.  Most are still not done.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * More done. Peter I. Vardy 13:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better. Now that we can see your sources, we can discuss their reliability.  For example:
 * ^ Bullock, Ross (February 7, 2005). Some History of Norton Priory and Runcorn. Retrieved on March 27, 2007.
 * is a personal website; what makes it a reliable source? And, since the statement it sources has another citation, why do we need this source? Pls review all sources to make sure they meet RS.  Also, glancing at the lead only, I see overlinking.  Please review WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINK.  Most English-speaking readers know what soap is and it need not be linked; review throughout and delink common terms that don't provide specific context to this article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ^ Bullock, Ross (February 7, 2005). Some History of Norton Priory and Runcorn. Retrieved on March 27, 2007.
 * is a personal website; what makes it a reliable source? And, since the statement it sources has another citation, why do we need this source? Pls review all sources to make sure they meet RS.  Also, glancing at the lead only, I see overlinking.  Please review WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSLINK.  Most English-speaking readers know what soap is and it need not be linked; review throughout and delink common terms that don't provide specific context to this article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You raise an interesting point. The problem is local knowledge.  I know the authors of both sites.  Ross Bullock is the local expert on Norton Priory; he has been closely involved with the project since excavations began in 1970, is a trustee and is the person who is always asked to give talks about the site.  His website may not be the most exciting to look at but I can assure you that its contents are thorough and reliable.  On the other hand the "official" site is at present an "in preparation" page.  In its last incarnation it was flashy, contained much less hard information than Bullock's website and was aimed at attracting visitors rather than providing the sort of information required by an encyclopaedia.  I thought of not including the "official" website as a link, but sooner or later someone else will add it.  The solution is to expand the current article on Norton Priory, which I intend to do in time, but until then I should like to keep the link.


 * You are right about too much internal linking; this was done in my early Wiki days (poor excuse). I will go through and delete what I consider to be superfluous links. Peter I. Vardy 15:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"There has been an increase in the number of households from 47,214 in 1991 to 52,501 in 2006. The average household size has fallen from 2.70 in 1991 to 2.44 in 2001. In 1991, 75.8% of houses were centrally heated, compared with 89.8% in 2001. The type of housing has also changed, with an increase from 15.5% to 19.2% in detached houses from 1991 to 2001, an increase over the same years in semi-detached houses from 30.0% to 33.0%, and a corresponding decrease in terraced houses from 44.0% to 37.5%.[45] The percentage of dwellings in council tax bands A-B is, at 69%, the highest in any Cheshire local authority. The percentages in bands E-F (8%) and G-H (1%) are the lowest."
 * Was hoping to see an improvement, so I took this excerpt at random:


 * Verbose first sentence; try "The number of households increased from 47,214 in 1991 to 52,501 in 2006." Remove "has" from the second sentence. Remove "corresponding". "Bands A and B"? In --> for. "Authority" --> "government area", or whatever the unit is called. Deal with the remaining two hyphens.

Not good. Still oppose. Tony 04:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right: there has been no substantial change to the text because I am awaiting a second round of copyediting (see above). The previous round (and the peer review) failed to notice the verbosity and other faults, and made the prose "choppy".  I look forward to an improvement that will satisfy all. Peter I. Vardy 13:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.