Talk:Middlewich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click [show] for further details
Cheshire Portal This article is supported by the Cheshire WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-Priority on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Middlewich was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision.
Article Milestones Date Process Result March 27, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed Current Status: Failed good article nominee

Assessment Report

1. A bit more minor tidying up, and perhaps this should be put in for "Good Article" status at least. may be it would easily achieve that, in which case, it can then be re-assessed.

 DDStretch  (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Contents 1 Links 2 Good Article Status 3 Links to maps 4 Theatre vs Amphitheatre 5 Vandalism?? 6 GA review

(15/12/05) I've significantly changed the ordering of the page and tried to get the article to flow and tell a story, rather than being bitty and repetitive. I've also removed some time dependent information - e.g. who played the folk and boat in 2005.

[edit] Links

This page has way too many links at the bottom, especially compared to other town pages. A fair portion of them look like link spam. Any suggestions on which should be kept and which should go before I start culling them. I think the pubs and bars is unnecerserry as well as the estate agents bit. I think the facilities should also be incorporated in to the external links section. Ydam 14:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidance. You're right about the pubs too - Wikipedia is not a travel guide (see WP:NOT)--JBellis 15:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've trimmed down the links a fair bit(I took out all the links to maps for one) but it still needs more work. I'll do that a little later. Ydam 17:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've seriouslly trimmed down the external links now as well as doing a bit of tidying up. Not sure the h2g2 link should stay but I've left it for now. I welcome any suggestions on any links that should go back in. Ydam 10:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Status

Anyone else think this article should be nominated for good artcle status? It's got plenty of references and pictures and plenty of facts. Ydam 13:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There is still significantly more information which needs adding.Salinae 20:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why that should stop it from reaching good article status though. Everything can be improved but that doesn't make this a bad article.

[edit] Links to maps

Given recent history (for example Kinderton electoral ward now includes the old township of Newton and no longer contains the township of Kinderton, Weaver is now on the western side of Winsford) providing links to the maps gives useful information on where these townships were.Salinae 20:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I took them out as I've never seen any other article constantly provide links to maps when a location or place was mentioned. I thought they made that article look messy. I can't seem to find any specfic wiki policy on not doing it though so if you think they're that necerserry feel free to reinsert them.

Speaking of which all the www.fhsc.org.uk links are going to have to come out or updated if poss as they're dead. Ydam 21:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I know about fhsc.org.uk - they're moving to a new server, once it's in place I'll update them allSalinae 11:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theatre vs Amphitheatre

Are there any refs to the Bull Ring being developed as a Roman theatre rather than an amphitheatre?

I can find the following after a quick google search to support amphitheatre

• Middlewich Amphitheatre Design Wins Awards
• Amphitheatre is well worth the money
• Corrida de Middlewich!

and nothing to support theatre. It would be good, given that it's referred to so often as the Amphitheatre to at least have a ref to back up the name.

FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH Yes, I'm well aware of the various misinformed references by the various local Councils and Press to the Bull Ring redevelopment as a Roman ampitheatre, which still persits today. However, when options were put forward for the redevelopment, Congleton Borough Council's Planning Department produced two sketches: one involved refacing the then existing wall with Roman mosaics and the other involving demolition of the wall to open up the view towards Hightown and replacing it with a convex curved set of steps. Being a member of both the Town & Borough Council at the time, I suggested that in view of the recent success of the Roman Fesitival and interest in the Town's Roman Heritage that a variation of the steps theme be considered and produced a "back of an envelope" sketch of a Roman Theatre.

The Borough Council then prepared a third sketch based on this and all three were dispayed in Middlewich Victoria Building (the Town Council offices) in 2001 and visitors were invited to vote on their preferred choice. The Roman Theatre sketch was the most popular choice, however when the Borough Council announced the result they misstated it as a Roman Ampitheatre, i.e. a fully enclosed eliptical arena, however, being semi circular, it clearly is not that! One of my last tasks as a Middlewich Borough Councillor in 2002 as a member of the Joint Town, Borough, County & Heritage Panel was to approve the awarding of the grant for the Bull Ring redevelopment.

I recall a press article by local historian Brian Curzon shortly after the official opening, criticising the Council for getting the name wrong. Its style is clearly that of a Roman or Greek Theatre and was what I had in mind when I conceved the idea. My recent amendments to the entry merely reflect this.

Cllr John Brown, currently Borough Council Ward Member for Holmes Chapel (e-mail: clrjbrown@aol.com)

I've thought it was a bit of a strange name, given that it is definitely not an amphitheatre, however I've seen examples elsewhere where similar structures are called amphitheatres. Thanks for explaining the background to this. Salinae 23:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism??

Interesting to see the page has been semi-protected. Didn't expect a Cheshire town page to be a vandalism target. --SunStar Net^talk 02:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Northwich. Richard W.M. Jones 10:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Reviewing this article against the good article criteria, I can't say it meets them. the article is a **good start**, and has most of the sections of a good city article. But most sections are just stubs within themselves, with very little actual content.

The lead section should adequately summarize the article. The geography section is unreferenced, and also contains no information about the climate. The history section is very well-developed, but the prose can be choppy at times, and it's divided awkwardly into several sections. The history section should tell the story of the city from the time it is first established to present day. Instead, it seems to deviate into some discussion on salt production (which might better be suited for the economy section), to two uncited sentences on historical townships, to population changes, and then finally gets back into the 19th and 20th centuries. I think it might be better to include fewer subsections here, and just tell the story of the town.

Promote the demographics section (should be just after history). Expand this and provide more references. Where did this demographic data come from? Simply saying 'data from the 2001 census' is not sufficient; whose census, provide a link to the census on the web, if available.

The landmarks section would best be moved to a 'culture' section as a subsection on 'cultural attractions'. Describe some of the main cultural attractions in the city, and include photos. 'Places of interest' can be moved into this section as well.

Media & sports should probably also be subsections under 'culture' as well.

'Economics' - change to 'economy' and expand beyond its two sentences. 'Retail/commerce' can come under the 'economy' section as well. As a matter of fact, most of the subsections under 'present day' should be moved to other areas - I have yet to see such a section in any article on any city, yet. What is the purpose of the picture of a seat in the Roman theatre? A single seat? Huh? the stage might be better here,...

'Transport' should be a main section unto itself. 'Schools' should also be in a main section as well, probably call it 'education'.

You might move the 'in literate' main section to a subsection under 'culture'. More should probably be written here than just reproducing two quotes.

It might help to review WP:CITE for tips on including and formatting inline citations, as well as the good article criteria and manual of style.

Hope this helps! Good luck! Dr. Cash 04:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)