Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Keswick, Cumbria/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Keswick, Cumbria[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley and Dr. Blofeld

Keswick is a small town, known as the capital of the English Lake District. Its history goes back more than 700 years, and its literary associations are remarkable, from the Lake Poets to Hugh Walpole. This article, which has had the benefit of a thorough peer review, seems to the nominators to cover all relevant aspects of the town and to meet the FA criteria. We look forward to seeing and responding to the comments of other editors. Tim riley talk 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John[edit]

Looks great; made some minor copyedits and formatting changes. What does this sentence mean? The registers of Crosthwaite Church stated that there were 238 interments in 1623, believed to have probably been "a tenth, or at most, one-twelfth, of the whole population of the parish at that time". A tenth is more than a twelfth. Almost ready to support. --John (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unquoted and redrawn for clarity. Thank you, John. Really helpful! Tim riley talk 20:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

As usual, starting with references and reference formatting. Some of the references don't seem to be formatted by template. That's fine, insofar as templated formatting isn't required, but it does seem to have let some errors creep in. In general, using the templates helps make sure your comma vs. period ducks are all in a row, and so forth; many of the references have problems with this, especially compared to the formatting style used in the bibliography (which is templated). I'm not going to call them out individually at this point, but assume that needs done (whether manually or by template) across the board. Personally, I'm not particularly fond of the way this article does reference bundling, but I understand it's trendy to limit Little Blue Number proliferation, and I won't hold this up on that regard. All reference numbers as of this revision:

  • Flom (reference 2) uses a nonstandard way of indicating volume and issue for a journal.
  • Ekwall and Mills (reference 3) is a mess, with the page number wedged inside the authors, the publication date appearing twice. Print sources do not require access dates (even when accessed online; the idea is that the print sources aren't going to change when we're not looking, but purely online sources might). Also, this is a book-format source (even if online) with an assigned ISBN that should be included (I won't quibble over whether you cite the print ISBN or the "eISBN" for the online edition); this is true for other Oxford University Press works cited in this manner, also.
    • I have always treated online references as sui generis, even if there is also a printed version, in all the articles I have steered through to FA, and propose to do so here. Duplicate date deleted. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the reliability of Visit Cumbria (reference 19) for a significant historical claim. I'm also not sure that the source actually makes the claim cited: "In 1276 Edward I granted the town its market charter, and the Saturday market continues to this day." But I don't think that's an assurance that the operation has been continuous. Is there a better source for this?
    • Bott also says the same. The VisitCumbria source is referred to by the BBC, universities, national newpapers etc: see list here. For the continuity of the market see also: here and Michael Jackson's Exploring England (1979), p. 119. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Derwent Pencils source (reference 39 in part) appears to be a dead link.
  • Visit Cumbra (reference 44) is less problematic than the earlier use, but I'm still dubious about reliability; that the source has a "Related Links" section with a bunch of links back to Wikipedia does not instill me with confidence.
    • You can't hold that against it: the BBC does the same from its website – see here – right hand column.
  • In reference 55, the author's middle name is misspelled (it's Rowan, not Rownan).
  • Why is City Population (reference 56, 79) a reliable source for demographics information? Basically, why don't you source this to whatever UK statistics report provides it directly?
    • Because I could not find it on the ONS site – possibly the most impenetrable and least user-friendly site I know. I'm sure it's there, and correctly quoted on the German site – I managed to find the 2001 figure on the ONS site here, and it reassuringly tallies with the German site – but the 1991 figure has eluded my detection chez ONS. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 70 needs an access date.
    • I think we are supposed to add an access date only when the press article is not itself dated: "For web-only sources with no publication date, the "Retrieved" date (or the date you accessed the webpage) should be included." (Wikipedia:Citing sources). Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. Elsewhere in the same guideline, it says that "Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include: ... the date you retrieved (or accessed) the webpage (required if the publication date is unknown)". I've always read this to mean that access dates are required if there is no publication date, but preferred for web sources regardless. I suppose I can see how an alternative reading of the guideline is possible. Personally, I'd prefer them, but I suppose I won't consider this point actionable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Derwentwater site (reference 72), the commercial site for a hostel, a reliable source for claims about the local microclimate?
  • Is Holiday Weather (reference 73, in part) a high-quality reliable source for weather statistics?
    • It is used for one category not published on the Met Office's site. Where they otherwise overlap they concur, and so I think it reasonable to trust the site. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reference 78, Vision of Britain is hosting copies of the 1911 census, but is not their publisher or originator.
    • The originator was the General Register Office, which no longer exists. The original publisher was His Majesty's Stationery Office. I could obtain the published books at the British Library, but it seems reasonable to use the online version. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. And actually, since this site presents the information in an updated format rather than just being an archive, citing it is reasonable, and I withdraw this objection entirely. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the Theatre on the Lake warrant inclusion; information on it is cited exclusively to its own website (reference 81, 82)? Actually, this appears to be true for most of the Landmarks section. Do any third-party sources discuss landmarks or other places of significance in Keswick?
    • Theatre by the Lake productions are regularly reviewed in The Guardian and elsewhere, but for factual info about the building it seems sensible to draw on the fons et origo. If you insist I could order copies of The Keswick Reminder via the British Library to get the same information from its pages. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 92 and 93 are both Visit Cumbria links, both of which are formatted differently from previous Visit Cumbria links and from each other. Notwithstanding my concerns about the source in general, that's really an example of why templates help.
    • You may have a point, but with two editors contributing substantially, using a template would be no guarantee of uniformity. Now adjusted. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the risk of sounding pedantic, reference formatting uniformity is a feature article criterion (2c). Also, the "Ruskin Memorial" Visit Cumbria reference now has broken formatting. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea what "Keswick Tourist Information, Moot Hall" (reference 99, in part) refers to.
    • It means I went in and asked the officials. This can be removed if you wish, but it is the only source I can find other than the one you object to at ref 99 that mentions the matter. We can ignore the Muslim angle if you insist. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is muslimsinbritain.org a reliable source (reference 99)? It appears to include user-submitted content.
    • As above Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uncertain. The personal interview at Moot Hall in particular does not meet the standards of WP:V. A second opinion on the reliability of muslimsinbritain.org might not hurt; if consensus is that it falls short of reliability, it may simply be that the Muslim minority in Keswick is too small to be the subject of third-party coverage (perhaps understandable, as there's not even actually a mosque). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is schoolswebsdirectory (reference 113) a reliable source?
    • Strangely, I could not find this information on the Council's own site, and the matter is surely not contentious. Will delete if you prefer. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, the Cumbria LEA does not have the most informative site ever. This document by the LEA lists the Keswick schools, but doesn't actually say anything about Keswick being part of the Cumbria LEA. Or really anything else. Or mention that Cumbria is an LEA. Hmm. I'll agree that this isn't contentious, but it amazes me that no one just says this anywhere official! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 115 has broken formatting.
  • Why is Find the Best UK (reference 116) a reliable source?
  • Reference 120 needs an access date. So does 128, which is another good example of where templates would help...
    • As pointed out earlier, access dates are not required for dated press references.
  • ...I didn't check the last column or so very thoroughly; similar concerns are likely through the end there.
    • As above.
  • In the Bibliography, you mix ISBN 10 and ISBN 13. ISBN 13 is preferred (ideally with correct hyphenation). Bookmark this tool and it will be your friend forever.
    • I didn't know the thirteen-digit format was preferred, and have always used the ten-digit version. Can you point me to the relevant WP guideline? Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • From Wikipedia:ISBN, "Please use the 13-digit one if available". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am in your debt for that: I had no idea. (Do we know why the longer form is preferred?) I shall make sure to use it henceforth. I'll start with the sources for the present article. WorldCat, where I get many of the ISBNs, doesn't hyphenate them, but the tool you mention above seems to cope with that. The thought of ploughing through earlier FAs and smaller fry is too daunting to contemplate, but for new stuff I'll do as bid. Tim riley talk 19:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is my favorite tool, ever, for working with Wikipedia references. As for why this is, ISBN-10 was the original standard (well, technically, SBN-9 was the original standard), but some parts of ISBN-10's assignment space are getting full (in much the same way that there's a transition from IPv4 to IPv6). All valid ISBN-10s can be converted to ISBN-13s by adding the 978 prefix and recomputing the checksum (last) digit using the new formula (or letting that tool do it, especially since it knows the substantially more arcane hyphenation grouping process). Some 979-prefix ISBNs have now been issued; these cannot be converted to an ISBN-10. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am so old that I worked for Her Majesty's Stationery Office when we were introducing Standard Book Numbers – no International about it. ISBNs followed on hard behind. Thanks for the most interesting update. Tim riley talk 19:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you give publisher locations, sometimes you don't. It's entirely optional, but you can't have it both ways.
    • Again, the upshot of having two main authors writing at the same time. I've added locations where they were omitted. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mostly good. Although you do have one location cited as "Westport, UK" (the Olsen source), when the rest don't note that they're in the UK. I think it's safe to drop the UK there, as this is a British topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • A typo by me, I fear. It should be US, not UK, and now is. Tim riley talk 19:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not extremely convinced of the independence and reliability of the Bott source, published by the local county library, but I honestly didn't take the time to evaluate the type of claims it sources. Still, if there are "better" replacements, that would probably be ideal.
    • Bott is regarded as the source. Our local library in Keswick has something like a dozen copies of hardback and paperback versions. He was a respected historian, commissioned by the County Council to write the official history. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe your coauthor list in the Maxwell source is properly punctuated.
    • The problems of using templates, I'm afraid. The semicolon is inserted willy-nilly, where one would prefer a comma. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the semicolon is correct (because it is a list with one or more elements that include internal commas). It's the rest of the author list that's a problem. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no objection to semicolons instead of commas, and have adopted your preferred style. Tim riley talk 18:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Winter book is self-published. Why is it a reliable source?
    • As with the Bott book, the Keswick public library keeps several copies of the work. If the local authority thinks it worth making available it seems to me reasonable for us to use it. If I had looked at it at the British Library it would be another matter, of course, as the BL has to stock everything – good, bad and indifferent – but the council has to select its books (and pay for them!) Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An External Links section consisting of one bare link with a self-referential cautionary note, isn't really okay.
    • We inherited this: see the article talk page. I have found one incorrect statement in one of the site's many pages, but on the whole it's a good and interesting source, and worth drawing to people's attention, I feel. But if you insist, we can delete it. Tim riley talk 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no opinion on the value of the site as an External Link. If it's a useful source of information, then, sure, it's fine as an External Link. The problems are that it needs at least a little context to explain to the reader what it is ... and that the self-referencing warning note isn't okay. Our articles should never point readers directly to parts of the project outside of articlespace (well, almost never: certain hatnotes are the exception, but that's not germane here). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done no prose evaluation, however I am lean oppose. Reference formatting is easy enough to repair, but I'm concerned about the amount of material referenced to self-published sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no idea what you are referring to really, the Bott and Winter books would be classified as local research which is actually to be encouraged on articles such as this as you'll find more detail and information than you would in general reference books. The Bott book which is used earlier on is clearly a local reference book which would contain more details than most other sources and Tim evidently found it to be excellent source material on things like history in the area. As he stated, it is the definitive book on the town and written by a respected historian. If I was doing local research on a village in my area, the best sources on local history would very likely be those of local historical societies or council too. Some of the local council or local sites used in the article contain intricate details you'd be unlikely to find elsewhere and are legitimate sources. So long as there are a range of sources used it shouldn't matter. Some sources might be replaceable if there are concerns from several editors, but I just want to say that the sourcing in this article is typical of an article on a small town. You can't possibly compare them to large cities like London or Manchester which have a wealth of books written about them and published in various different places. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there will be fewer, and more limited, sources for Keswick than for London, but as a FAC reviewer, it's my obligation to evaluate the quality of sources in regard to policy and to the "high-quality reliable sources" expectation of FA criterion 1c. To that end, I'll try to take some time to examine what claims are sourced to Bott; if that work was presented as an official history, it adds some weight to it, although I'm still not sure whether it should strictly be considered an independent source. I am less swayed regarding Winter. From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources: "[S]elf-published media, such as books ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't see any evidence of that being the case here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your diligent review, Squeamish Ossifrage. My bad, as they say on Grand Theft Auto. I should have stressed that my near-support above was based largely on prose, which to me is pretty much ok. I did notice the prevalence of primary sourcing and I should have noted this above. Nothing that can't be fixed though, I think. --John (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck some concerns, and responded to a few others. I realize that this article has been a cooperative venture between two primary editors. But I really think the article's editors need to agree on a single, fixed reference style and apply it fully to both the references and the source bibliography. Compare the Ekwall and Mills source in references (which is a book-format source, albeit online) with the book sources in the bibliography. Field order is not the same, punctuation is not the same, structure is not the same. I realize that this sort of thing is not a popular part of article authorship nor of the FA process, and I'm sorry that my focus on referencing rather that prose can come across as pedantry, but 2c is nevertheless a criterion for promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked a fair bit into research for this myself. I barely found anything of real substance, at least what is available online in google books which document this town in great detail. I mostly found short articles from old encyclopedias and the basic amenities in travel guide sort of books. A lot of what I added was found from newspapers and local websites. I'm amazed that Tim found as much as he did so I think in this particular case it's actually a good thing that he did the local research and used such books to enhance the article. I'm pretty sure a lot of the sources won't be replaceable, particularly for the history. I think the article would be much weaker without them, in fact I'd argue that the content written using the Bott source is the cream of the article. On reference formatting, my particular preference is cite web for web sources and sfn for books with a bibliography which has always been acceptable to FA and GA reviewers. I followed the formatting Tim prefers, which I also believe has been perfectly acceptable to others in his past FAs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't work out what's getting Squeamish Ossifrage so agitated about the Ekwall and Mills ref. The Ekwall part relates to the sources section, and the Mills part refers to an online source in the form standard for the article, as explained above. SO, nobody is accusing you of pedantry: we all want to get these things right, but there is no single path of righteousness, as you have now conceded in re access dating dated press refs. Would you care to set out the wording for this particular reference that would satisfy you, consistent with the rationale adopted for the whole article? Dr B, most grateful for your silent adoption of my ref style: I had forgotten you are an SFN man, a condition to which I have never aspired because SFN baffles me! I ought to have thanked you before for your flexibility. Tim riley talk 18:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added lots of links to independent sites and replaced the Winter material with the same material from other sources. As Bott is regarded as definitive (see here) I have no intention of replacing any ref to his book. Indeed this article would be impossible without it. Tim riley talk 13:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage: How are things looking now from your perspective? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I've looked at SO's comments and I'm confident those can be fixed without too much trouble.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wehwalt, for your support here, and for your earlier help at PR. Tim riley talk 11:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I agree with Dr B's comments above, about the value of locally-produced sources in articles about small towns. It is highly likely that any supposedly "neutral" or outside source will have drawn on these local histories anyway. While Squeamish is right to raise issues of reliability, I think that Tim has responded fairly and adequately. I contributed to this article's peer review, and I believe that all the issues raised there have been handled adequately. It sounds a nice place. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir! (Seriously, have you have never been there? You really ought to repair that dereliction. Time it right and we can accommodate you and Mrs B at the Riley ancestral shack.)

Support. Although very surprised to see no mention of music, e.g. Keswick Music Society [2], West Cumbria Music Festival [3], the Mountain Festival [4] or even famous local venue [5]! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC) p.s. Steeleye Span have sold out for this Sunday night, in case you were wondering![reply]

Thank you, Martin. Yes - I need to add a bit about classical music. Give me 48 hours and please look in again. Tim riley talk 21:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a short para on music in Keswick. I could expand but I don't want an excessively long list of performers. I think the ones I have named give a snapshot: any thoughts? Tim riley talk 10:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
48? ... that's less than 12! Looks fine. Fully agree that only the top five or six performers deserve a mention. What about folk/popular music, and/or other regular festivals? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any institutionalised folk or popular music presentations, though there are always three or four buskers even in winter, and live music in some of the pubs if you're not careful. Last weekend we were beset by dozens (literally) of morris and folk dancing troops – very odd. I'll have a look round, but I don't think I'm likely to come up with much of use under the folk and popular heading. Tim riley talk 13:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Errant crafty morris men, one suspects. But don't worry, am not holding my breath while I strap these bells and ribbons to my gaiters (and firmly lodge my finger into one ear). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was one of the happy punters at PR, where my minor quibbles were dealt with. I appreciate the concerns over the sources, but agree with Brian that the local sources are probably the most reliable in this instance. - SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SchroCat. It's been fascinating to research in the local archives, and it's a lot different from the British Library modus operandi that you and I know so well! Dr B has kept me on the straight and narrow with much tact. Tim riley talk 21:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - mostly OK (some minor queries)

  • File:Sorting-copper-ore-16th-century.jpg - could you add the modern source of this specific image? (book scan? photo in the museum?)
    • Oh, Lord! I got it from an old book but I'm blest if I can remember which. I'll rummage and find out, if I can. Tim riley talk 15:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alas, I cannot find where I got this from. Would it be better to replace it with a similar one such as that on p. 284 here? Tim riley talk 18:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it's all the same for the article, i'd replace the image. But i won't oppose over a small missing documentation detail. When the current image is needed for the article, just keep it - it's clearly PD even without further info. GermanJoe (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is, in truth, all the same, and I'm replacing. If you think the earlier image should be deleted from WP, are you able to arrange that? Tim riley talk 19:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Loutherbourg-skiddaw-1787.jpg - Should have PD-art (see source).
  • File:Pencil-making-Keswick-1850s.jpg - The year is off (caption 1865, description 1856, published 2 years earlier?). Suggest just "1850s" (could also be copied to Commons, it's old enough even for an unknown author).
    • Done.
  • Aside from those nitpicks all images are CC or PD, and have sufficient source and author info - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I had my say at the PR and think the article now meets the FA standards. I have no quibbles about supporting. Well done Tim! —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your support is gratefully received: thank you, Cliftonian. Tim riley talk 15:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Most happy at peer review, even happier here. A great first effort on a geographical article from Tim. Fully meets all FA criteria. Cassiantotalk 20:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Cassianto. I have had the benefit of Dr B's experience and tactful guidance, which have helped the article greatly. Tim riley talk 20:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a Public services section would eliminate that lone hospital sentence in the Education section. Otherwise very comprehensive. J3Mrs (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, though I'm unsure how changing the section heading from "Education and health" to "Public services" would make a difference to the fact that we have a two-sentence para on health at the end of the section. Tim riley talk 14:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be so vague, I meant something along the lines of this. J3Mrs (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: (and anyone else who likes to comment), what think you? I'm not that keen on a multi-topic single para, and I think a two sentence para on health, as now, is probably the lesser of the two evils. Tim riley talk 15:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to provide it in GA reviews and I realise Public services on the how to write about settlements page is optional but I would have thought necessary for a comprehensive featured article. J3Mrs (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I tend to avoid titles like "public services" as I start thinking about smelly Shank toilets, rickety old buses driven by a guy named Bob with bad BO, musty old libraries and post offices full of screaming kids... hehe. I'd prefer to keep it as Education and health, or separate the sections if more can be found on healthcare. I'm not sure a lot of things which fall under public services are really encyclopedic anyway, you wouldn't want to document the price of bus fares or sports tickets or about when the toilets are cleaned etc. Some of the utilities mentioned in the Bolton article agreed look good though, I'd support a Utilities section with health and the others mentioned if it is going to really improve the article, just avoid the really trivial public services... I don't see it as essential for it to pass FAC though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I'll do a bit of digging and add the significant material to a Utilities sub-section. We can tinker with the section heading{s} at our leisure, I think, post FAC, whichever way it goes. Tim riley talk 19:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In thinking about it if you were to briefly mention emergency services and police I think it would be encyclopedic, but obviously you wouldn't go into much detail. Content like local water and sanitation services would be appropriate too. I suspect if I do a bit of fishing around I could find some additional content on maintenance works in the area on top of what you add. If it does make it more comprehensive without venturing into the trivial daily services it should be OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A first rate article. I had my say at PR and my concerns were met there. A couple of nit-picks.

  • "Other small-scale industries grew up, such as tannery and weaving; although the boom of the mid-16th century had finished, the town's economy did not slide into ruin, and the population remained generally constant at a little under 1,000." I would split this sentence into two.
  • I would leave out the absurd 1157 date for the school - before Keswick was first recorded! Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Dudley. Both points are wholly ad rem, and shall be attended to forthwith. Your shrewd medievalist's eye is much appreciated. Tim riley talk 22:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Jimknut[edit]

Support. Article looks excellent. Jimknut (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that support, Jimknut; it is greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 18:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note Could the nominators please check for unnecessary duplicated links such "Grade II"?

Done, only one extra Grade II link I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Keswick,_Cumbria/archive1&oldid=1136096800"