Talk:Evesham/Archive 2

There are a number of short sections, and the sections themselves could be better grouped. The lead needs development per WP:Lead. There are a number of statements that could be queried, but are unsourced - such as "Every year there are asparagus auctions", "Further features of local language give rise to variations in the pronunciation of the town's name", "The nearest major airport is Birmingham International", etc. The Notable people section needs writing up in prose. The history of the foundation is presenting legend as fact. Though the foundation is shrouded in legend, [http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=36469 this source] does give more information, and does make it clearer what is fact and what is fiction. The Battle of Evesham is significant enough for there to be more information about it - it should be mentioned in the lead, and should have a section on it. I think there is a fair amount of work to do, so I don't want to take this on as reviewer at the moment. SilkTork *^YES! 17:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

:One or more contributors to this article may not wholly agree with one or more of the points above. As you were not asked to make this summary, other reviewers may have other opinions and may be prepared to make a correct GA summary on the required template, and put the article on hold for the improvements. Thank you for your interest. --Kudpung (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

{{Talk:Evesham/GA1}}

Hello again Dana, and thanks for your initial comments. I agree with you, this article will take some work, but let's see how far we can get. I've made a start on the history section - the paragraphs are now in chronological order, and I've folded the abbey section into the main text. I think we still need some expansion here - as I understand it, Evesham was once one of the major abbeys in the country, but I don't remember where I read that (!). Does anyone have a source? {{done}}

I think we should also say something about the 'Evesham Custom'. It is relevant because it explains why Evesham became such a centre for market gardening. There is a good description [http://www.badsey.net/past/custom.htm here], although I'm not sure this counts as a reliable source. Again, does anyone have good sources? {{done}}

For the notable people section, an introductory sentence is difficult - all these people really have in common is Evesham! I've looked around a few pages for other towns - most simply give a list with no introduction. In fact, the only one I could find with an introduction is Malvern, Worcestershire, written by Kudpung. GyroMagician (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC) {{done}}

::Thanks for lending a hand Gyro. I'm out of town (back in hospital for a couple of days) but I'll address the issues too as soon as I can locate a WiFi. Looks as if Dana has already run the link-check script, but I'll run it again adn see what I come up with. I'll also try to sort out the new refs I added a couple of days ago.Kudpung (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Excuse my butting in but I thought I'd add a bit to the History section. And a ref or two Ref4 has quite a bit of useful info.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

::::Hello J3Mrs, and welcome to the party! Please keep butting in -- I like your additions, and there's plenty to do :-) GyroMagician (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::There is an awful lot of information missing from this article, are there no landmarks? Such a section could mention the wood framed buildings, old bridges etc. What about parliamentary representation, population, public services?. It seems to be a very interesting place and I have found out a few bits without too much trouble. As for the notable people, why not turn it into its own list article and link to this one, mentioning any really notables in relevant sections. I personally dislike these sections but they do seem to attract other editors.

::::::Yep, I think we still have a lot missing, but it's growing now. For notable poeple, I prefer to have a list on the main page, rather than a separate article. I'd never read a separate page, but I do sometimes stumble across someone interesting while reading about a place.

::::::I know we're trying to expand the article, but I'd like to chop some. Currently, the road transport paragraph reads:

:::::::The town is on the once planned line of the Strensham to Solihull motorway, linking the M50 to the M42.[29] However, in 1974 the scheme was dropped in favour of widening the M5 through Worcestershire.[30]

::::::Do we really need to mention a motorway that wasn't built 37 years ago? I vote for cutting both sentences - does anyone disagree? GyroMagician (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC) {{done}}

:::::::I agree, it would be better to include info on Public transport.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

{{outdent|6}}I know I'm a bit late here, but I concur. Although I found a citation for this, the sole purpose of that exercise was to replace a contentious citation with something more substantive. I'll often address that issue separately from the issue of "should content X be in article Y" for a number of reasons. Among them are: (1) oftentimes people just utilise whatever citation they can find, and since I'm particularly good at finding information, part of my task is to demonstrate how to do this; (2) having found a more reliable citation, the question can then be addressed of whether information X belongs. One reason (but not the only reason) for this approach is that sometimes the standard of information in a Wikipedia article is an artifact of the source/s utilised. By improving the source, one allows a broader approach to the 'keep/don't keep' question, by allowing for expansion, improvement, or alteration of the text in question, if the desire is to keep. Further to this, oftentimes I may edit an article on something that is closer to other editor's hearts than to mine. This being the case, I prefer to expand on the options and leave some sorts of editing and dialogues alone. Wotnow (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks everyone for your grand efforts so far. I've now spent a day on this (see history), and can't think what else I can do to improve it. I think all Dana's points have been addressed - let's not try to find new solutions to problems that we haven't got, and see if it can pass GA by the end of this week. Kudpung (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

::The transport section needs some work, but I'm not sure how to untangle it. The historic facts about the roads and railway formation are interesting, but make the section difficult to read. The transport section is usually a very terse description of the transport links available in a town - I think it works well that way. Maybe these facts should move up to the history section? GyroMagician (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)