Talk:Godalming/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 11:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Doing...

Thanks @Llewee: for taking on this review. I look forward to working with you. Mertbiol (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

Ok, that's understandable Llewee (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• "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 [1] - 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)

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)

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)

• "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)

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)

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)

• "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)

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)

• "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)

Ok, that's fine Llewee (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• "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)

@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)

@Llewee: I have responded to your two points above Mertbiol (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.