Talk:Romford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleRomford 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.
August 24, 2009Good article nomineeListed
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Romford:

  • Commerce: more significant employers in the town [high priority]
  • Landmarks + parks and open spaces [high priority]
  • Education [high priority]
  • Future: Regeneration / Thames Gateway [high priority]
  • More photographs: retail / commercial [medium priority]
  • Pick out some significant people in Romford history [medium priority]
  • History: operation of the Poor Law [low priority]
  • Culture: More on music scene - any other producers? [low priority]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Romford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

This article looks quite reasonable; and at or about GA-level, so I'll do a detailed review section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, whilst it is not a spacific GA-requirement, most if not all UKgeo articles have a section on weather - temperature and rainfall records - have a look at any of the GA UK-towns (and US towns). The broadness clause can be used in this case, but I'll continue reviewing the article for the moment. Pyrotec (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added the average temperatures for now. This has actually highlighted a problem with London coverage in general and we should probably have this information on the borough articles as a bare minimum, currently only the London article has this information. MRSC (talk) 13:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary[edit]

There is not much wrong with the article, so I'm just doing an overall summary rather than a section by section list of corrective aactions. Its basically GA-material.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A comprehensive article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Minor comments:
  • There are inconsistencies in the naming of references, e.g. there is (made up example) Bloggs, Fred (2009). My first book and Fred Bloggs (2009). My first book.
  • Powell, W.R. (Edr.) (1978), is a reliable source, but it is a (set of) published book; that in some instances is freely available as a set of pdf files. My personal oppinion is that the 'correct' call for this source is as per in-line citation 5, with page numbers quoted (one that I changed). Elsewhere, it is called up as a web reference (as W.R.Powell (1978).) with no page numbers.

Overall: Congratulations on the quality of the article, I'm awarding GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:UKCITIES[edit]

Noticed the article passed GAC lately. Just wondered if it was possible for some of the content to be cosmetically rejigged so that it conforms with the layout recommended at WP:UKCITIES? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Compliance with any recommended layout made by WP:UKCities, is not a precondition for awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I know. But I think it still makes good sense to adopt a standardised layout, if just for the benefit of our readers. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I've updated. The differences were minor so it caused no problems. MRSC (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Former market town?[edit]

I think there is a distinct problem with this article in that every so often it states that Romford was once a market town, now I know for a fact in living here that Romford is still a Market town and holds a Royal Charter saying so - I wonder why this fact seems to be omitted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.169.55 (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Romford is an historic market town that has been absorbed by the expansion of London to become a large suburb. The article reflects that and the sources cited. There is no suggestion that it no longer has a market. MRSC (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Romford is in London[edit]

The confusion needs to be resolved. Boundaries have changed. I've edited the article to reflect reality, but I'm making a note here lest someone decides to revert my edits without discussion: I don't want an edit war.--Leon (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  • +1 - It seems a few places in Romford are going by "Essex" .... Is there actual proof it's in London? ... –Davey2010Talk 19:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
This strongly implies that Romford is in London, whilst this, if followed through the links, also references Romford being part of London. It's in the London Borough of Havering.--Leon (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Romford. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 01:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Romford. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 09:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Romford. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 12:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)