Talk:Faversham

Faversham 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.
Review: July 18, 2015. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Faversham article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal 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.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kent High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Kent tasks:

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Clean up an article: Here are automatically generated lists of articles needing cleanup sorted alphabetically and by category.
Edit the Top and High importance articles.
Refine/polish: Ashford, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Canterbury
Expand:: List of churches in Kent, Maidstone Borough Council
NPOV: K College
Citation needed: Unreferenced Kent articles
Cleanup/Copyedit: Kingdom of Kent
Expert attention: Channel Tunnel, Bromley Civic Society
Stubs: see Kent geography stubs articles

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Weather box

I don't see the point of having a weather box with hardly any information and a ^{[citation needed]} tag. Does anyone else? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the climate section, the information on the highest UV index is not official and was added by a Weathereditor sock --2A02:C7F:C802:4000:F862:2F68:A3B6:CFA (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that info, I will remove it.SovalValtos (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong River Swale

The explosives section includes two new factories were built alongside the River Swale in Faversham. River Swale is wikilinked, but to the river in Yorkshire. I am not sure if it should be linked to The Swale, or whether the factories were by Faversham Creek. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the sources and old maps, the 19th century factories were based toward Oare along Uplees Road, northwest of town about here. There's hardly anything left. In any case, the channel separating the Isle of Sheppey from mainland Kent is called "The Swale" - it's not a river as there is no source. As the Swale has been mentioned earlier in the article, any link here is redundant in any case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 14:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Passed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

An editor causing problems has been blocked, and the article semi-protected. Article has been otherwise stable, and has every indication of now remaining so. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is clear and readable. There are some places, such as the Culture section, where there are too many short sentences and/or short paragraphs, which can inhibit reading flow, but it's not significant enough to hold up listing, and should be dealt with as part of ongoing development. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images are fine. Captions have been trimmed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no aspect or section which is over detailed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article is balanced and neutral. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is reasonably broad, and there is essentially enough in the article to provide a useful guide to the town. Some more info on 20th century history, a section on notable residents (when I lived there Bob Geldolf and his family lived there - they were fully integrated into the community, and my children went swimming with them; not sure if he still lives there though), a bit more detail on Shepherd Neame (they do dominate the town, and the brewery claim to be Britain's oldest), and general fleshing out of the various sections, would be useful; however, that would be part of ongoing development. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Unless the texts mentioned in Further reading were used as information sources for the article they should be in a separate section from the References to avoid confusion, as per WP:FURTHER. If they were used, then they should be listed as sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What probably is the case here is that the books (which mainly refer to the explosives industry) were originally used as sources for far more material, that I subsequently trimmed down (compare with last year before I started improving it) to provide a sensible balance. Any books I did pick up and use as a source again went into "Sources", the remainder are just other books useful to read. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of images in the article which is causing crowding and section pushing in places giving an untidy and cluttered appearance. Some of the images are pushing the boundaries of relevance and encyclopaedic value (such as File:A2 Ospringe Street, near Faversham - geograph.org.uk - 1438992.jpg and File:Half-time, Faversham Rec - geograph.org.uk - 1075353.jpg, while others have long captions with text that could be placed in the main body. See WP:Captions, WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, and WP:LAYIM. I suggest removing some of the less relevant images, and moving some of the caption text to the main body. If agreed, I could do that quite easily. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not especially attached to any of the images, so yes, give it a go. I did flesh out a few captions specifically because it wasn't immediately obvious how the image in question was relevant to Faversham. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

General comments

I've not yet finished looking through the images, but I am struck by their general poor quality. For such a photogenic town it seems a shame that we don't appear to have better quality images available. Do we have a Wikipedian in or nearby who would be willing to go out and take some photos? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There a lot of pictures under the Faversham category in commons, but a lot of them are like this and this. I live near Faversham but my photography skills are terrible and when I look at what User:Hafspajen can accomplish, my heart sinks, plus there's time to get there and plan what to do. I have put a better Brogdale farm picture in from Commons. The Rec buildings, market place, West Street, quayside, Alexander Centre and The Mall are all good subjects to take photos of. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used to live there, but that was in the 90s, so any photos I have would be paper and somewhere up in the attic. I'm just looking on Flikr, but can't see anything better than what is on Commons: [1]. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can find so far is this: [2]. Gives a decent flavour of the town, though the ambient light is a bit murky, so it's not very crisp. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the infobox image, I really think it has to be the Market Place, right in the centre of town and the principal meeting point of everything, obvious landmark, significant architecture. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. In the meantime, I have just uploaded that image of West Street and cleaned it up a bit, so it is available: File:Faversham (7323996204).jpg. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's some images here: [3]. They say "copy free", so I have written to the site to ask if they can be used. I also have a friend who has some pictures of the market square which I am now looking at. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Le-Roi has written back saying that images can be used from the website "provided credit to me, Red Sands Radio & a link to the BLR Website are included". However I found some good images on Flickr which I have uploaded to Commons, so those images are no longer required. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watling Street was used by the Romans, but its use pre-dates them, and its name is Ango-Saxon. The street does, however, have a strong association with the Romans. If I remember rightly, there is an information board on The Mall which says that because the street doesn't go through the town, the Romans created the first by-pass. There is evidence of an alternative road which goes along West Street, then Lower Road, joins up with School Lane in Newington, and then becomes the Lower Rainham Road. So it may well be that West Street was the Celtic route, and what is now the A2 is a Roman by-pass! Anyway. I think it may be useful to think of alternative wording to "close to the Roman Watling Street, now part of the A2". Perhaps "close to the ancient track way used by the Romans and later named Watling Street, which is now part of the A2"? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately my experience of The Mall is dropping into The Elephant for a drink, but as far as I can tell, Watling Street's route was due to the geology, putting all of it out of the way of marshland everywhere and putting the straight route further north would have been risky for marching troops in bad weather. Also, if you mentally blank all the buildings and railway, you could probably look from the A2 / Mall junction down in a straight line via the Mall and Preston Street to the Market Square, then again up Abbey Street to the Abbey, which suggests a small Roman branch road off the main route towards the town. I've got distracted by reading sources about the pre-Roman alignment of Watling Street and how much is left, but I'll get back to you! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth mentioning that the town was an associate member of the Cinque Ports. I remember when I lived there, that the town was proud of that aspect of its history. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, well made - shipping is mentioned in several places (a friend of mine runs a bar by the Standard Quay and shipping is alive and wel) but not that specific point. I've put that in "early history" since it became a member in the 13th century. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Faversham actually on the High Speed line? When I lived at Medway I was aware that the HS1 trains use the Faversham line, but they were not High Speed until past Dartford when they connected to the High Speed line. You could get on a HS1 train at Rochester with a normal ticket, but had to get off before Ebbsfleet unless you had paid for the High Speed service. When I went to France on the High Speed line we had to travel to either London, Ebbsfleet or Ashford to catch the train. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Since 2009 Southeastern Highspeed links Faversham to High Speed 1" (which I would read as meaning it's not on High Speed 1), the sources given have the name "SouthEastern Highspeed" which is what the service is called, and announcements at the station say "Platform [x] for the [time] high speed service to St Pancras International". The service doesn't join the Channel Tunnel Rail Link line until just before Ebbsfleet International, so the initial part of the journey is not strictly "high speed" at all, but SouthEastern seem to want to try very hard for you not to notice! Does that clarify matters? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the See also link to Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions appropriate? There is already an appropriate link to Faversham explosives industry in the relevant section, and that article has a range of topic related See also links including one to Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions, for those who wish to look into that further. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so, this is a remnant of the earlier state of the article. I'll take it out. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listing. This is a useful introduction to Faversham - an interesting town with an interesting history. The Faversham Society have a number of publications which may provide further information of use to the article. It has been a pleasure doing this GA review as you are always prompt, polite, and collegiate with responses to queries - an example of how Wikipedia works at its best. I recall doing Watford Gap services with you last year, and that was equally a pleasant and easy process. Well done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I could have added more about Shepherd Neame, they are first and foremost what I associated Faversham with beyond anything else, but I was unsure about balance as King Stephen, the explosives industry and the market make equally strong claims through history. As far as notable residents go, they have been integrated into the relevant sections rather than being separate - a spin through the history will show they were once in a list. Never knew Geldof lived there, and are you sure he lived in the town itself, as opposed to Ospringe, Brogdale, Oare, Graveney or Brenley, all of which get described as "Faversham" from time to time? I have seen Vic Reeves in Ashford and Paul O'Grady is nearby, but I'm not sure either is a "notable resident" as some define it - as in making a distinct contribution to the town and community. Anyway, all conversations for another day - thanks again. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Geldof lived (still does?) in Davington Priory. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He still lives there. [4]. Other newspaper reports which provide bits of information, including how strongly he is associated with the town: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. It appears he did consider selling up in 2001 - [11]. Those reports reflect my own experience - the family were well known around the town as they mixed with the local community. I spoke with him and the children several times. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davington Priory. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that, and Geldof, are now in the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Faversham. 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) 06:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How far is Faversham from London?

For some time, the article has said that Faversham is 48 miles from London. Today, that was challenged, by somebody else saying it was 58 miles.

I've checked the article, and somewhat surprisingly (given this is supposed to be a good article) the 48 miles claim is unsourced. I've done a quick google for "London to Faversham as the crow flies" and I get this link which claims it is 45 miles straight, and 54 miles by car.

I don't know how reliable a source that is - can anybody do better? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Faversham. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150604184009/http://www.rsc.org.uk/whats-on/arden-of-faversham/ to http://www.rsc.org.uk/whats-on/arden-of-faversham/

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) 22:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Faversham. 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) 11:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faversham Society page

A group of us are looking to include additional information about the Faversham Society on this page (or we may create a new page). We have found 3 additional civic societies have pages on Wikipedia around so planned to follow this model - see for example Birmingham Civic Society. Secker.jane (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest writing a standalone article about the society in a sandbox first; if you find you can write about 300 words on the society from independent, third party sources, then a standalone article is probably suitable. The existing coverage in the article could be extended by a sentence or two more, but probably not much more than that as it would start to distort the balance of everything else in the main town article. You might also want to talk with ProCivitate who wrote most of the Birmingham Civic Society article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology

The Archaeology section is incomplete. It has a couple of specific discoveries listed. There should be a coherent set of the significant Archaeological Discoveries made. For example, uncovering the abbey and Roman Villa excavations by Philp in the 60s, the discovery of the high-status Anglo-Saxon (Jutish) Cemetry in the 19th century by the railway builders and brick makers. The Roman Burials found in the area. The uncovering of Davington manor. Evidence for neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age occupation. John27813kent (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @John27813kent: If you have reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources) assembled, you might approach the editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology. They should be able to guide you with the content changes you mention. Tiderolls 17:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the page

A group of volunteers at the Faversham Society are working on improving the pages about the town and it's history, following training from Wikimedia in October 2022 and August 2023. Secker.jane (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are back doing another editathon this August! so you may see some edits and improvements coming soon to this page! Secker.jane (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am also going to try to add something to the page Mumbai897 (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will also be adding something at the editathon Dublin516 (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]