Jump to content

Talk:Cranham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCranham 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 15, 2010Good article nomineeListed

historical information

[edit]

Extensive historical information has previously been added to this article (and that for Upminster and Essex) only to be redacted by someone else. This makes the wikipedia project not worth bothering with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.216.239.108 (talk • contribs) .

Your edit introduced errors such as changing Romford Rural District to Romford Rural Division and added a link to a dead website. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. MRSC 12:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in political boundaries form a pretty minor, if not trivial, aspect of the recent, general history of the northern Thames littoral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.8.218 (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can edit mercilessly; the question is whether it is done intelligently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.8.218 (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cranham/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how the article in its present state matches up to the six good article criteria.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The prose is very good and easy to read. The article is in compliance with Wikipedia]s manual of style as well as the guidelines for UK cities. I am a bit concerned about the placement of the table to the right of text in the demography section; users with small monitors might have some awkwardly placed text. It might be better to place this at the bottom of the section, after the text.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The article is adequately cited, and all citations appear to be reliable.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The article is mostly complete and contains everything that I would expect an article about a small, suburban bedroom community to contain. The last three sections are very short, however. While I can't think of too much more to be written about transportation, the economy and culture sections are mostly just listing a couple of things in the community. Seems like this could be expanded. Can someone take a photo of some of the shops in the town? Are there any annual cultural events that take place?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    The article adheres to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    The article is stable and has no evidence of edit-warring or WP:3RR violations. Most recent editing is by MRSC.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    All images that are currently used in the article are tagged with copyright tags and captioned appropriately. An image of the primary business district/shops could help the article a lot, though (see above).
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The article is very close to GA at the moment and can be promoted pending a few minor adjustments. I will leave this on hold at WP:GAN until 3/8/2010 so that these issues can be dealt with. Cheers! WTF? (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review. I will deal with these points now. MRSC (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Culture: checkY I've expanded this to detail the activities of the two community associations, one of which appears to be very active.
  • Economy: checkY I've included hospitality. Very hard to expand as this is too small a neighbourhood to have data produced for it alone, most sources conflate it with neighbouring Upminster.
  • Photo: I was hoping to get a suitably licensed image from geograph or flickr, but unfortunately it is all churches and Underground trains. I'm sure this is because the shop parades are late 50s/early 60s and not very photogenic. It might be some time until a suitably sunny day coincides with my ability to visit this part of the world. I've since added two photos of landmarks. checkY photo of shops now added. MRSC (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer appears to have disappeared. Since you've fixed everything and I don't see any other issues, I am passing this article as a GA. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

[edit]

The inclusion criteria is verifiability, not truth, which means reliable published sources are required for assertions to be added. Misattribution of inserted claims to existing citations in the article, which do not agree, is a no-no. MRSC (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Cranham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cranham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cranham&oldid=1208876284"