Will take a look at this one in a bit. From a quick readthrough, quite a few sections need to be trimmed (such as the Urban planning and Sport sections) and some citations are missing proper titles. I also see that the nominator has not majorly contributed to the article nor have they sought advice from those who have, which I would suggest in the future. SounderBruce07:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for picking it up. I'm a little puzzled by the suggestion that I've not majorly contributed to the article though - I've made many edits over the last few months (especially last October) making what I'd thought were relatively extensive revisions for accuracy, whilst adding sources to the numerous points previously unsourced. Anyway, I look forward to seeing your thoughts once you've had a chance to look at it. Many thanks. Stortford (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, at the time the article history tool I use didn't load up your contributions. I've been fooled by one too many drive-by nominations, it seems. Starting now, but it will take a while to read through all of the sections. SounderBruce02:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This section is too long and has too many subsections. I suggest trimming it to only mention teams and organizations that are recognized on a national level or are at least partially professional. The other sections could instead be condensed.
This section should be condensed and folded into a general Transport section. It reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedic entry and needs more substantive sourcing to back its claims.
SounderBruce, Stortford, where does this review stand? As far as I can tell, SounderBruce last added to this page back in late March, and Stortford posted here on May 1 about addressing issues raised in that March review. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second opinion requested in the hopes of finding reviewer to take over[edit]
As SounderBruce will not be able to continue the review, the nomination status is being changed to "2nd opinion" in the hopes of finding a new reviewer to take over the review. Thank you to whoever steps up. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Letchworth-HeritageMuseum.jpg doesn't have a valid source link, and the link to the photographer's page is dead. I found it on an archive.org page, but there's no declaration of a license use, so I think this should be removed from the article.
I'm not convinced by the FUR for File:Letchworth Urban District Council coat of arms.jpg. Given the length of the governance section I think a separate sub-article on the governance is likely to be eventually needed; this FUR would suffice for that, but do we really need it here? What does the reader get that they don't get from the statement in the article that a coat of arms was awarded?
Earwig finds one issue. Source: "The crest shows a black squirrel, referring to the fact that Letchworth Garden City is home to one of the country's largest colonies of black squirrels, which were first recorded in Letchworth in 1912. The black squirrel is now a relatively common sight across Letchworth and the surrounding area." Article: "Letchworth Garden City is home to one of the UK's largest colonies of black squirrels, which were first recorded in Letchworth in 1912...The black squirrel is now a relatively common sight across Letchworth and the surrounding area." This is almost unchanged.
What makes the following reliable sources?
greenflagaward.com -- the link is dead and there's no archive link.
nortoncommarch.com -- some local archaeology groups are reliable, but I don't see anything here that tells me this is more than local enthusiasts.
web.ukonline.co.uk
www.workhouses.org.uk
www.civicheraldry.co.uk -- per this page it's a one-person site
www.allabandoned.com -- aside from anything else, this page makes it appear they take some material from Wikipedia.
comedy.co.uk
The 1911 census is a primary source, and it's best not to use it by itself.
I'm going to pause there until these are addressed before continuing the review. I am a bit concerned the article is too long; I see the comments in the earlier review about some material needing to be removed, and just glancing down the article I see material that seems too detailed for this article, though perhaps it could fit into a sub-article -- the sentences about Horace Pinston and the control of the estate, for example; the details towards the end of the 2005-2013 subsection of the governance section (which only covers eight years but is the longest section); some of the clubs mentioned in the sports section; the LALG; the graphs of the power output; the long list of notable residents; and some of the "popular culture" material.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for picking this up. Responding to the particular points raised first:
Heritage Museum picture - replaced with alternative picture of same building which was on Wikimedia Commons with Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 licence.
Fair use rational for coat of arms picture - I'm a little puzzled as to why you think this FUR might be adeqaute for a future sub-article on governance, yet isn't adequate for this page as it stands? If the topic of the town's governance is being discussed here, why wouldn't this FUR suffice for this page?
It's the same as the argument used for album covers. If you are writing an article about an album it's generally agreed that the album cover is a valid fair use image for the article. If you write an article about the band that released the album, and have a section on the album, it's not generally agreed that you can have the cover as a fair use image. Here I think the question is whether the reader gets some value from the image that can't be conveyed by the text. A separate point is that the source quoted (on the image page) is also a wiki. I would suggest editing the image page to add a note of the Miller or Johnson sources which you mention below as confirming the accuracy of the image. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig - I assume the source article it's found is this one: http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/herts_ob.html - and that page notes immediately above the wording in question that some information has been taken from Wikipedia. Internet Archive's Wayback Machine shows that this wording was not on Civic Heraldry at 31 October 2021, whereas I added that wording to this page in an edit on 23 October 2021, so I think this is a case of Civic Heraldry copying my wording on Wikipedia rather than the other way around.
Green Flag Award - redirected link to Green Flag Award website rather than a pdf list of winners which used to be on that website but has clearly now been removed. The Green Flag Award is run on behalf of the UK Government (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities), so their website should be a reliable source.
Norton Community Archaeology Group - I take the point about proving reliability of a community archaeology group. The statement is backed up by Miller though, so I've replaced that source with a page reference to Miller instead.
web.ukonline.co.uk - an old reference that was on the page before I started overhauling it last year. Looking at it again, I don't think it's actually necessary as a source for information in the text, so I've now deleted it.
workhouses.org.uk - is a website run by Peter Higginbotham, author of The Workhouse Encyclopedia (2012, The History Press) and numerous other books on the subject. The website summarises much of the information in his encylopedia and I generally quote his website rather than his books for ease of other users being able to follow the links.
civicheraldry.co.uk - I agree it's a one person website, although one that seems to be referenced by many others on the subject. The Letchworth Urban District Council coat of arms also appears in illustrations in both the Miller and Johnson books already referenced, confirming the accuracy of the image on Civic Heraldry.
comedy.co.uk - the snippet sourced by that was one of the less noteworthy points in the popular culture section, so I've deleted it.
1911 census - was the only source I could find to back up the claim that Jane Short lived in the town, but that being the case perhaps her connection to the town was too slim to include her in the list of notable residents - now deleted.
A couple of items unstruck above. Adding one more point that came up while going through the ones above:
You have some material in the lead that is not in the body -- the Green Flag Award is the one I noticed, but I haven't checked the whole lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body, so typically everything in the lead is also in the body, often in more detail. As a result, it's usually not necessary to have citations in the lead, because everything in the lead will be cited in the body. It's OK to leave the citations in the lead if you want to, but I just wanted to be sure you were aware it's an option to cut citations in the lead if the material is supported further down. Many editors avoid citing the lead because it makes for a cleaner reading experience, but as I say it's optional.
Hello - I have now had a go at further trimming and tidying the text. I think part of what has happened here is that the page as it stood in Summer 2021 included a lot of urban myths and inaccuracies - such as that the town was founded by Quakers, or the estate was owned by the residents. Part of my motivation for overhauling the page was to try and correct these misleading points, stripping them back to the grain of truth they perhaps contained, but citing chapter and verse as to the actual position. Separately, the section about the town council had grown very long during the brief period the council existed, having become a bit of an editing war between the supporters and opponents of the town council. Whilst I was pleased to have corrected all the information, I understand that it was too long for a fresh reader. I have now tried to strip back some of the excessive detail - there are still plenty of signposts in the references as to more detailed books on the subject for an interested reader to follow up.
I have taken your advice on the lead, removing the sources from it and moved the Green Flag Award point into the body. I've removed the section on electricity generation, replacing it with a much shorter paragraph within the industry section. I've taken out some of the smaller sports clubs, the LALG and some of the notable residents whose connection to the town was more tenuous.
I would prefer not to have a sub-article for governance though - my preference would be to find the right balance / length for discussion on this page, as a sub-article would be rather a niche interest on its own. We're also discouraged from creating separate pages for Letchworth / Letchworth Urban District under "districts that are also settlements" at WP:UKDISTRICTS. That being the case, whilst I do see the distinction you draw in your band / album cover point, I still would prefer to see the coat of arms image here. I have now found book sources for all the information about the coat of arms that was previously quoting wiki / one person website sources, and added notes to the image page too, as suggested. I'm also of the opinion that if we are able to find a fair use way of presenting an image that adds visual interest to the article and gives a more readily accessible way of presenting the fact of it having had a coat of arms than the bald statement that one was issued. I think it's similar to modern council logos - many pages about modern councils include the council's logo under a fair use rationale, e.g. North Hertfordshire, which just give a sense of the place's corporate identity in a way that text mentioning it wouldn't.
"and the landlord's profits are reinvested for the benefit of the community by the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation, a charitable trust which owns much of the town as successor to First Garden City Limited". This is in the lead. First Garden City Limited was mentioned above, so I think I understand this, but the sequence of presentation seems backwards. How about establishing that the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation is the successor organization to First Garden City Limited in the second paragraph of the lead, perhaps as a parenthesis after we give the name of the first company? And maybe establish an abbreviation for them, LGCHF, perhaps, since they're mentioned frequently in the article and it's quite a mouthful. Then we could do something like "and the LGCHF's profits are reinvested for the benefit of the community", which would avoid the way the current sentence has to step backwards in time to clarify itself.
"with large parts of the town covered by conservation areas": suggest "included in" rather than "covered by". This is in the body and the lead.
"Whilst" is not as common these days as "although"; for variety I'd suggest changing a couple of instances.
"Since 1995, the garden city estate has been owned and managed by the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation. The estate eventually started yielding a financial surplus which could be used for the benefit of the town in 1973." So 1995 is when First Garden City Limited is succeeded by the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation? If so let's be explicit about it. And the sequence here seems out of order; why mention 1995 before 1973? Ah, reading further I see the LGCC intervenes, from 1963 to 1995. I think some indication of this needs to be given at this point.
"Letchworth is unique in having a private charity": does "unique" here mean it really is the only one? E.g. does Welwyn Garden City have a similar arrangement? I know "unique" can mean "very unusual" but I think most readers will take this as "the sole instance of" so I wanted to check.
Suggest combining some short paragraphs in the Governance section, and some more further down, in Wildlife and Recreation.
"The civil parish of Letchworth was substantially enlarged on 1 April 1908 to take over the area of Norton parish, which was abolished, and also taking territory from the northern part of Willian parish." Inconsistent tenses. The easiest fix is probably to make it "and also took".
"Letchworth Urban District Council was formed to replace the parish council, as well as taking over district-level responsibilities from the Hitchin Rural District Council." Same tense problem; suggest "and also took over".
Looking again at the coat of arms, is it possible it comes under Crown Copyright? If so they would be out of copyright.
The unusual governance, with the town council abolished, seems worth mentioning in the lead. I know you said you don't want to create a subarticle on it, and that's up to you, but it does seem like there's quite a story to tell there. Both the abolition of the council and the fight with Hotel York are remarkable stories.
In the popular culture section, I see Miller discusses Orwell's references, which I think is good enough to keep them. I'd suggest getting rid of the second paragraph, though; it's not a notable fact about Letchworth, given that both sources are local news outlets. If a non-local source ran a piece about the use of Letchworth for filming the movie that would be good enough.
Note a is unsourced: "The reason that the full name Welwyn Garden City had stuck for the second garden city was to distinguish it from nearby Welwyn which remained a separate village, unlike Letchworth village which had been subsumed within the first garden city."
Thanks Mike. I've made tweaks responding to most of those points.
I've put the transfers from First Garden City Limited / Corporation / Heritage Foundation in the lead, but rather than use an acronym I've gone with calling the Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation just the "Heritage Foundation" at most uses, except where I'm talking about the body's creation.
Unique private charity - I think unique is the right word. Welwyn Garden City started out with a similar company structure to Letchworth, but its assets and functions were later passed to Welwyn Hatfield council. All the other new towns saw their development corporations' assets pass on winding up to the Commission for New Towns (and the various successors to that body).
I don't think Crown Copyright helps us on the coat of arms, as I think it's the artistic depiction that we're using rather than the legal description (blazon) which is the bit issued on behalf of the crown, but I'm not an expert on that. Using a fair use rationale errs on the side of caution.
I've left the town council's creation / abolition out of the lead - it was a few short years of argument which resolved back to the previous status quo. Therefore whilst it's certainly a story for the body, I don't want to say it's part of the defining summary of the town's history in the lead.
Added a BBC article about the filming of the World's End in the town for national coverage.
Note a - was a statement of something that seems self-evident to me if you know the Welwyn / Welwyn Garden City area - those two settlements remain distinct from each other, whereas the old Letchworth village has now been swallowed up by the garden city. I put the footnote in on the basis that many readers won't know that, but I doubt I'll find a source for it, so I've taken out the footnote.
Everything looks good, so passing. You're an excellent writer; have you considered doing GA reviews? We always need new reviewers, and you know from this article how long the backlog gets! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Mike - I appreciate you taking the time to review this and your useful feedback for helping to improve it. I did look at the reviewing process a while back but didn't take it any further. I'm focussing at the moment on a project to improve coverage of UK local authorities, but perhaps in future I'd consider it.
