Talk:Knighton, Powys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knighton, Powys has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.	United Kingdom Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Assessment comments)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance within the UK geography WikiProject.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Knighton, Powys was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: March 19, 2008

Contents 1 Knighton text box 2 Mold wikilink 3 THANKS 4 Wales & England 5 Knighton 6 GA on hold 7 Shawbury weatherbox

[edit] Knighton text box

if you want the Knighton userbox here it is

[edit] Mold wikilink

There's currently a wikilink to Mold pointing to the article about fungi. Should this be Mold, Flintshire? The sentence in the history section: "It begins at Basingwerk on the Dee Estuary passing through Mold, turns south to join the Alun Valley, passing through Hope and Wrexham on its way to Oswestry." –Adrian J. Hunter 10:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THANKS

I have amended the reference

--Maxburgoyne 15:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wales & England

Knighton does lie on both sides of the border but it is principally in Wales. Only 1 street and the railway station are in England. It is, therefore, misleading to amend the info box to show a split Eng/Wal identity. --MJB 12:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knighton

Hi there. Good work on Knighton, Powys - I'd say that it's well on the way to becoming a Good Article, but it can't be assessed higher than a "B" grade for WP:WALES without outside consideration. Can I make a few suggestions? These are partly based on improvements that were required to Penmon, Anglesey when I and another editor were pushing for GA status for it.

• Cut down on the one- or two-sentence paragraphs/sections; expand them or merge them together into more substantial passages.
• Some sections need references e.g. most of the history section, until "recent history", is unreferenced.
• The list of pubs isn't needed, to my mind (and the phraseology "Remarkably" doesn't sound great, nor does a comparison to Sandhurst)
• The list of notable residents would be better as prose than as a list.
• Personally, I wouldn't think that we need an endorsement of a National Trail from the Daily Telegraph.
• <ref>...</ref> marks go after the "." at the end of a sentence, not before the "." Boring, I know, but GA reviewers look for this type of thing!
• If you use a reference more than once, use <ref name="XYZ">{{cite web...}}</ref> the first time, and then <ref name="XYZ"/> all the other times, to save duplication.
• Avoid links to stand-alone years such as 1858, unless there's a useful link e.g. [[1858 in Wales|1858]]. (Thus says WP:DATE, and who are we to disagree?)
• Dates in references should be written out and wikilinked e.g. 20 November 2007 not 20 Nov 2007.
• You may find more images to add at [1] - the Geograph website has a licence that is compatible with uploading to Commons, and it's quite a handy source.

There may well be other things, but that'll probably do for now. Have a look at some other Good Articles for ideas - e.g. Penmon, Anglesey (with discussion of points raised during the GA process on the talk page; Whitstable is another one to which we were pointed during discussion. Whilst some of the sections may not be relevant, it might give some food for thought, or further references you can use. A Peer review when you feel you've done all you can may be in order; otherwise, be bold and go for GA status! Let me know if you want to discuss further. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Government section - it currently states that "Real municipal authority lies with Radnor District Council and Powys County Council." However Radnor District Council was abolished in 1996. This therefore needs to be changed. There does currently exist, as part of the Powys unitary authority/County Council, a Radnorshire/Radnor area. David (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

• The lead is too brief and does not adequately summarise the article, see WP:LEAD for ideas.
• In the history section, the origin of the name Knighton needs a reference. On a similar note, it would be worth mentioning that the town used to be called Tref-y-clawdd meaning "the town on the dyke".
• The information of Wat's Dyke may be a bit excessive, perhaps it could just be tripped to the essentials, and I don’t think there’s actually a reference for it.
• Reference 3 mentions two castles in Knighton, yet only one is mentioned in the History section.
• “The construction of the railway was made economically viable - just - through the drive to connect the Mumbles and Milford Haven with the cities and factories of the Midlands and North of England” - perhaps a reference is needed?
• Why is the Knighton town crest in the History' section? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate under Government?
• “Knighton was for nearly 450 years part of the traditional County of Radnorshire which in 1974 was subsumed in the county of Powys.” - I’m afraid this needs a reference.
• “The town forms part of the Westminster constituency of Brecon & Radnor; the current MP is Roger Williams. It falls within the Wales European Parliamentary constituency. It is part of the National Assembly for Wales constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire and represented by Kirsty Williams AM.” - this needs referencing, and perhaps which parties the politicians represent could be included.
• A geography section should be added, see WP:UKCITIES for details.
• I’m being very picky, but could the figures in the Demography tables be to the same number of decimal places. Also the Demography section could perhaps do with a bit more prose, but this isn’t a big issue since the tables are clear enough, although it may become important if the article were to go for FA
• “On the last Saturday in August the town holds its annual Carnival and Show, which attracts thousands of visitors to the town from all over the world.” - reference needed.
• The Economy section is rather brief, perhaps it could be expanded using data from here.
• The Education section is distressingly brief, although I see this I because there’s not much to say. Could a mention of results be included?
• The first paragraph of Geology and geomorphology seems to be completely unreferenced.
• “To the south the town is girded by Llan Wen hill” - this is an odd way of phrasing it.
• Maybe the climate data should be moved to the article on Shawbury and the remaining information integrated somewhere else.
• There are a few stubby paragraphs, which ideally should be expanded or merged with other relevant paragraphs.
• Less importantly, the sections should ideally follow that laid out by WP:UKCITIES, and the Government section would be renamed to Governance. Transport and Notable residents should be stand alone sections.

I realise this is a lot to do, but judging from the amount of work that’s already been put into this article, I think it can be done. Best of luck to all the editors involved. Nev1 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing some of my concerns, I'm sorry I've taken so long to get back and take a look. My main concern now is that the prose seems very choppy in places and doesn't seem to flow, as exemplified by far too many short (often one sentence) paragraphs. Since a lot of effort was put in immediately after the review, and I used up several days of the hold period by not looking, I'm reluctant to fail this article, but realistically the flow of the article needs addressing and this is not a minor issue or one that's easy to fix. Also, not every point was dealt with, eg: the lead. I'm sorry to fail this article, but I hope to see it back at WP:GAC in the near future. If you disagree with my decision, feel free to take the article to WP:GAR. Nev1 (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shawbury weatherbox

How relevant is this data? The weather station is like 40 miles to the North east, so while the data may be relevant to Shrewsbury, and maybe even Telford, I think to say that Knighton, which is located in the hilly terrain to the southwest, has a comparable climate to Shawbury, is taking it a bit far. Admittedly, the weather of the UK does not vary drastically, but still, the Shawbury weather station is too far away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.246.174 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Find me a nearer one? --MJB (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there obviously isn't one with yearly averages. Just saying, just because it's the nearest, doesn't mean it should be included, as it kinda lacks relevance. 84.66.246.174 (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)