Talk:Uttoxeter

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Uttoxeter/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 22:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Overall the article is short of the good article criteria. My two main concerns are the lack of referencing and the poor prose. To meet the GA criteria any information which could be challenged needs to be referenced, which essentially means that most of article needs proper references. The article is sprinkled with single-sentence paragraphs which breaks up the reading and makes it difficult to read. The prose also has a number of unencyclopedic wordings, a selection of which I have mentioned below. Keep in mind that subjective terms are not permitted in an encyclopedia and that we focus on facts presented in a neutral manner. Overall the article is somewhat short and it would be a lot better if more content was added to most sections.

Comments

• The article needs a "geography" section and, depending on how the geography section is written, also a section describing the urban areas and the urban community.
• There are lots of images of Uttoxeter on the Commons. Find some of the best and add them throughout the article.
• The lead must be much longer, perhaps four times as long as it is now, and should summarize the entire article. See WP:LEAD.
• "The population of the town is increasing." is a unencyclopedic and low-priority information. Instead, state the population and then state the annual or decennial absolute or relative growth rate. As it reads now it is not neutral.
• The history section should be a bit longer, as it will be one of the most important parts of the article. More importantly, it tends to focus on rather trivial aspects (an individual citizen, details regarding a manufacturing company, the location of the city charter) rather than the overall trends of the development of the town.
• "Perhaps the most famous event" is not encyclopedic—don't speculate ("perhaps") and don't make statements like "most famous", which is inherently subjective.
• "National Archives" links to List of national archives.
• If you include a location grid, which I would hardly recommend, it should be placed at the bottom of the article along with other navigational aids.
• The demographics section should be expanded, for instance with religion etc. If no more than this amount can be said, it needs to be moved to another more appropriate section.
• "At one time" needs to be specific or instead use the more formal "previously" if such a time cannot be established through sources.
• Distances need metric conversions (the easiest is to use {{convert}}).
• "Places of interest" is subjective and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. All the entities mentioned in the section can be kept, but they should be included in more appropriate sections.
• Television appearances are trivial and should be avoided unless they actually influenced the town in real life. For a small town being the centerpiece of a major work might be notable, but even so it should be kept short. A separate section is not needed.
• Merge religion with demographics and avoid separate sections and don't create separate section for each church.
• I would expect to see a section called "politics" or "government" or something.
• Sometimes notable people might be worthy of inclusion, but in general such a section should be avoided. If people are highly notable they might be worth mentioning in the history or other sections, otherwise the content should be trimmed.
• The list of external links needs to be shortened significantly.
• See also links should be incorporated into the main section.

I will fail the article. It lacks a geography and politics/government section, severely lacks references and needs a thorough copyedit. Combined these are beyond what can be expected in a good article review. Once the article has been worked on, consider posting it at peer review for additional feedback. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Old/solved talk

Crime

I'm unsure of how the references to the two murders that occurred over the span of 25+ years in the Uttoxeter area really adds anything useful and worthwhile to this article. It's not any indication of the crime rate or the nature of the area to list two random acts of violence that received some media attention. For this reason I removed it. Should anyone disagree, please feel free to revert, but be so kind as to add your explanation for doing so here. --Elysianfields (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

I would be grateful for any information about primary sources for the name, learned opinions on etymology and sources for the notion that a personal name /witok/, /wutuk/, /wotok/ or similar is involved. I appreciate that wikipedia is not the place for publishing original research but that is exactly what I am engaged in and will publish elsewhere.

I'm attempting to finish an evaluation of possible etymologies in terms of British compounds featuring standard elements that are relevant to the place, and which can be meaningfully linked to the various phonetic realisations that we see in the many written forms and in the two currently attested phonetic realities which are not obviously from quite the same source.CecilWard (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Town twinning

The article states that Uttoxeter was twinned with... Does this mean it is no longer twinned with these towns. If not, why was the twinning arrangement terminated? If the twinning arrangement is continuing this should be rephrased is twinned with... Skinsmoke (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The arrangement is continuing and I've rephrased as suggested Doctor Girl (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Developments

I've removed the section about the controversy over Tesco, partly because I couldn't find any sources (and I really did try) and partly because I don't think there is controversy any more; the town has got used to the new development. But feel free to revert and update if you disagree (and can find suitable sources - good luck with that!) Doctor Girl (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)