Letchworth 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: September 27, 2022. (Reviewed version).

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.

Hertfordshire (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire articles

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was mouldy. Use a new move request if one is needed; this can't represent a current consensus, and the intervening period may help us gain a better perspective as to what extent the official name has become the common name. Dekimasu よ! 07:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Letchworth → Letchworth Garden City — Letchworth Garden City is the official name for the town, whilst Letchworth is an informal abbreviation. Currently the formal name links to the informal name; I'd expect the opposite. Ratarsed 13:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support. I wouldn't suggest it otherwise... Ratarsed 14:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, assuming "Letchworth Garden City" is the official name. See below. David Kernow 15:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC), updated 09:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this implies "Letchworth Garden City" is the correct name. --Pak21 15:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this suggested move is contrary to policy. We locate articles at the most common name (except in a few rare examples), not the "correct" name. Everyone knows it as "Letchworth", not LGC. James F. (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering more and more whether this policy is wise, as it can propogate or maintain inaccuracy – not a good idea, I hope all would agree, for an encyclopa/edia. Huzzah for redirects. Regards, David Kernow 12:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, however, whether or not the longest-standing nomenclature policy on Wikipedia is "wise" is just somewhat beyond the competency of this discussion, and thus our decision in this case must be to follow it. James F. (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the town as Letchworth Garden City, but I do know people do abbreviate -- if you were to list towns by what "everyone konws it as", then King's Lynn would be listed as Lynn, Ipswich as Ippo, Wivenhoe as Wiv. To me, it would seem better to list by the proper name with redirects from common use names. Ratarsed 17:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are both confusing "most common" with "slang" name (we don't locate the article on London at "The Great Stink", do we? :-)), and, as has David, above, suggest that we should conciously and explicitly ignore very basic policy in this regard. James F. (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
James has a point re Wikipedia favo/u/ring commonly-used names (with redirects from formally-correct names) rather than vice versa, as I recall reading this somewhere. (Thought I'd be able to locate it quickly, but must've missed it.) Hence I've withdrawn my vote. Regards, David Kernow 09:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." -- Wikipedia:Naming conventions, "nutshell" expression. James F. (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a nutshell version of that nutshell version somewhere; something along the lines of "Prefer common or everyday names over official or technically correct ones, as the latter may redirect to the former." Maybe I saw it on a page other than one on policy or guidelines. Regards, David 17:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles del Río de Porciúncula. Enough said. The Wednesday Island 15:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Letchworth" was the official name of the town until 2003 when it "officially" changed its name to "Letchworth Garden City" as part of the centenary celebrations, and following a lengthy local campaign. Considering the town's historical importance as the First Garden City its quite an important addition. Johnlbirch 21:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As above, I live there and we call it that, it's important to overcome the name that people who don't live there call it. The example of Los Angeles above is different, I've never been but I doubt most poeple that live there know what the old name was. grayme

Discussion[edit]

Forgot to mention; the page Letchworth, does state that Letchworth Garden City is the official name...

Add any additional comments

===As per discussion, see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names), indeed use the commom name, so no issue here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above move request closed around 1 and a half years ago so all things afterwards are now void. But then nobody has closed the discussion... Simply south (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Re. the section on local government, especially in regard to the UDC's old crest[edit]

This section of the article seems to be increasingly used as a mean of one side in this ongoing dispute to express their opinion or viewpoint. This is inappropriate in any reference source - either both sides of the argument should be refelected, or the matter should be avoided until it is resolved. Johnlbirch (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To-Morrow[edit]

The title of the 1898 book is given on the Ebenezer Howard page as "To-Morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform" Grmf 14:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying we should include a hyphen on this page, then? The Wednesday Island 15:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes please Grmf 15:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twin towns[edit]

The wikipedia entry "List of twin towns in the United Kingdom" lists three Letchworth twin towns: "Chagny, France; Kristiansand, Norway; Wissen, Germany" I think they are also listed on the signs when you enter the town and there are street names like "Chagny Close" and "Kristiansand Way" in Letchworth. Please add these to the Letchworth entry.

Famous Residents[edit]

Not sure if this is the best place to do this but I'd like to query the the Famous residents list. I have read the wikipedia pages for Lenny Henry, Dawn French, and Una Stubbs but I can't see the connection. As a former resident myself (born in Hitchin, attended St Francis' College) it would be lovely to boast of these links but can they be corroborated?

On the flip side, one of St Francis' most famous "old girls" is Jennie Bond, the Royal Correspondent for the BBC. Can she be added to the list please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.247.242 (talk • contribs)

I believe Lenny Henry & Dawn French used to live in Paddock Close, but you're right, really these need citations -- Ratarsed 11:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Una Stubbs is definately a decendent of Ebenezer Howard - though whether she lived in the town I do not know - but it seems quite plausible. On the other hand I can find no link anywhere confirming that Henry or French have any connection with the town. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.25.106.209 (talk • contribs).

The coat of arms[edit]

I think we need to be careful about WP:NPOV in describing the current spat over the coat of arms. I have deleted some text which was verging on, but wasn't quite, POV; we should probably replace it with something a little more neutral.

Here are some news links about the matter, for people who are interested in helping improve the article: [1] [2]

I'd like to point out that:

1. despite what a number of people in the Comet's letters page appear to think, the question of who should have rights to the LUDC's arms is not a matter of opinion: it is a matter of heraldic law.

2. Nobody "owns" the LUDC's arms any more, because the LUDC does not exist. Some people are saying that the Corporation had rights to the LUDC arms. I find this difficult to believe, but in any case the Corporation also no longer exists. The Foundation are on record as saying that they have no right to the LUDC arms; even if the Corporation had the right to the arms, it wasn't transferred to the Foundation.

3. What none of the news coverage has mentioned, and what the previous version of this article also failed to note, is that there are two coats of arms here: the Heritage Foundation have their own coat of arms, based on the LUDC's, but not identical to it. See Stuart Kenny's quote here (although he thinks it's called a "crest"):

The Corporation's crest ceased to exist in 1995 when the Corporation was wound-up. It was felt, subsequently, that the Heritage Foundation should have its own crest. Not least, this was in response to Letchworthians who wanted to purchase souvenirs with a crest, from our then Letchworth Shop. We went through the appropriate channels and worked closely with the College of Arms to create a new crest, albeit based on the original one.

These are the arms which the Foundation gave the golf club permission to use, and which you can see on items for sale in the Letchworth Shop.

Here are the two coats for comparison:

You see that both the crest and the shield differ. The crest has a golden owl and leaves, instead of proper; the shield has cinquefoils instead of roses.

The Foundation can quite properly tell the Town Council not to use the Foundation's arms, but the LUDC arms are none of their business.

I will think about ways to work these into the article over the next few days, but if anyone wants to discuss or argue with anything I've said here, feel free, and if anyone wants to put this stuff into the article, feel free as well, of course. Marnanel 22:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable residents[edit]

I've referenced this section as much as I can - there are still a few names there who are likely to have lived in Letchworth but I can't find a source specific enough - if anyone could help that would be great. Names that had no verifiable indication of a link to Letchworth have been removed. Mato (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Letchworth. 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/20100504114733/http://www.shaunhutson.com/shit2000.htm to http://www.shaunhutson.com/shit2000.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

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) 00:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Letchworth. 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.

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) 14:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 July 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the city to "Letchworth Garden City" at this time, per the discussion below, and general agreement that the city is the primary topic of "Letchworth", so the disambiguation page is not moved at this time. Dekimasuよ! 21:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– The name appears to be "Letchworth Garden City", even though on some levels, OS does show it as plain "Letchworth". A Google search for just "Letchworth" shows sources like the council and BBC that use the full name. The recently abolished CP was "Letchworth Garden City", but the older one was just "Letchworth", apparently this is because it was renamed in 2003. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 02:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Both forms of the name are used, but it's the clear primary topic for Letchworth in any case. No need for a move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should just make the first move and leave "Letchworth" as a redirect to Letchworth Garden City. It looks like Letchworth Garden City is the more common name today. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is. I think Letchworth is more common in ordinary usage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of ordinary usage, are you saying, how people locally refer to it? we have Appleby-in-Westmorland which is hardly ever called by the full name, though Appleby is ambiguous, Newcastle upon Tyne which is not normally called in full, though Newcastle is also ambiguous. Staines-upon-Thames is not ambiguous and was renamed in 2012 but it looks like the OS is settled on the new name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Appleby-in-Westmorland is probably not the primary topic for Appleby. Newcastle upon Tyne is borderline, but has stiff competition from the Australian city. Staines should be renamed, as nobody calls it Staines-upon-Thames. The town of Letchworth, however, is the primary topic for Letchworth. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact people don't call it "Staines-upon-Thames" is not the most important factor, the OS and other source now call it "Staines-upon-Thames" even though they used to call it just "Staines" with Letchworth it can redirect to the modern name. WP:COMMONNAME is not necessarily local name/what people call it but what the printed name is in reliable sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited two highly reliable sources below. The OS obviously uses the full name. As the national geographical data agency, using full names is its job! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: The OS uses the common name, not necessarily the official name, for example it labels Lancaster as "Lancaster" and lists "Lancaster District" as an alternative name. While "City of Lancaster" is used generally only in legislation. You can find plenty of sources that use "Letchworth Garden City" but not that use "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations", even its website doesn't appear to. The OS is used by numerous reliable sources and what it uses is what other sources formerly use. The fact that sources locally use the short form and that news reports also do so is just for brevity, the common and proper name appears to be the full name here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled as to what you think "common name" means? You seem to be discounting all sources except the OS. If the BBC isn't a reliable source for a common name then I don't know what is. Yes, it uses it for brevity. But that doesn't conflict with our common name policy. That's usually why a common name is used as opposed to a full version. If most sources use the shortened name, whether for brevity or not, then that's still the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out the BBC uses the full name, while it uses "Letchworth" in news reports for brevity. Pastscape like many sources also uses the full name for the parish. BBC news reports are helpful in situations where a longer more complete name is uses like County Durham, even though the name of the county is just "Durham" as can be seen from a 2008 A-Z. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, because it uses the full name on its weather reports, this trumps the hundreds of times it uses the abbreviated name in its news reports?! Durham is not really relevant because it can refer to two different things, so context is important (if it's obvious you're referring to the county as opposed to the city, you don't need to write "County Durham"). This is not the case with Letchworth! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a shortened name just like our article does (hence why we should use it here), it mentions its formal and shortened name. The relevant context with Durham being that it has a longer common name than the formal name. Minster-in-Thanet is another good example where a longer name is also common. This is also appears to be similar to the points at WP:CONCISE, with people, the first or last names generally aren't dropped. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment. Evidence of the relative prevalence of each form in reliable sources would be helpful. Dekimasuよ! 02:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Letchworth Garden City by OS (generally), official website and BBC

Letchworth Britannica. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The town's website may call it Letchworth Garden City in the header, but it's referred to as Letchworth many times within the body of the website. The BBC News generally refers to it as just Letchworth. The local paper calls it Letchworth. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The would you argue that Microsoft Windows should be at Windows and Adolf Hitler should be at Hitler, its common for sources to use the full name at the beginning and the less complete name throughout the rest. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would argue that Windows should be a redirect to Window! People's names are clearly a different case. Note that the BBC and local paper do not usually use the full name at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would some what agree with that but I think too many readers would be looking for Microsoft. People's names were also a bad example here but still makes the point.
Oppose I also (regretfully) oppose on the basis there is insufficient evidence "Letchworth Garden City" is the WP:COMMONNAME. The full name Welwyn Garden City isn't comparable because it's never referred to as "Welwyn", and in any case there is another town which has just the name Welwyn. jamacfarlane (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could there be 2 places with this name in close proximity, as both the OS [3] [4] and GeoNames [5] [6] have 2 entries for a settlement, although I expect its more likely duplication, it raises questions that 2 sources have 2 entries but I expect that GeoNames has used the OS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crouch, Swale, the "Letchworth" when you zoom in on the OS map is the railway station. jamacfarlane (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References[edit]

This article has been tagged as lacking citations for 11 years now. Somebody better add references or there will be probably some serious content deletion! See WP:RS for information on how to do this. Cnbrb (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tidying[edit]

I have given the article a thorough tidy over the last month, trying to source what was there but unsourced, remove inaccuracies and information which I can find no reliable sources for, expanded notable topics, particularly on the town's history and governance, and added more illustrations. A couple of reservations remain - in particular the section on the town council feels too long and detailed for how relatively significant it was to the town's history overall, and does still feel a little partisan. I know this wikipedia page itself became something of an editing war at the time, which may explain why this section ended up so big. I'd like to strip it back to something more brief and neutral, but will leave that for a couple of weeks to see if anyone has any comments on here first. (It doesn't help that some of the links used as sources for this section died with the town council.) Conversely, I think there is a place for mentioning critiques of the town's impact, but at the moment all that's here is what one commentator said on BBC2 in 2007, which isn't particularly comprehensive. Stortford (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Town council section now slimmed, hopefully hitting more neutral tone. Stortford (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 07:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sounder Bruce 07:31, 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. Sounder Bruce 02:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments below. I've now made a number of revisions trying to address the particular points raised. Stortford (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Link to the 2011 census article in both the infobox and lead.
"Garden City" should not be capitalized to maintain consistency.
"combining the best of town and country living" isn't written in a neutral tone.
"c." should use ((circa)) for clarity.
"great influence", "inspired other projects around the world" also need to be toned down.
The Lenin anecdote does not belong in the lead.
The lead should summarize some of the modern aspects of the town.

History

Governance

Geography

Sport and leisure

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.

Town twinning

Is there an independent source available for these entries?

Schools

Wildlife

The section header should probably not mention the squirrels directly.
The section needs quite a bit more substance if it's not exclusively about the squirrels.
I would also suggest moving this under Geography, similar to other city articles.

Roundabouts and Green Belts

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.

Electricity generation

Notable residents

Every entry needs a citation.
Entries without links should be removed.
The longer entries should be cut down to simpler descriptions. Mentions of their burial sites, relatives, and home addresses are all unnecessary.

Popular culture

The list should be converted to prose and cited, preferably with secondary sources like reviews that explicitly mention the connection to Letchworth.
The table for The World's End is entirely unnecessary and needs to be removed.

Citations

Book citations should be properly linked, using templates listed at WP:SFN.
Quite a few citations are missing publisher and date information.
Heraldry-Wiki is not a reliable source.

Status query

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]

I've not heard anything more since that post on 1 May. Thanks. Stortford (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to continue with this review. Sounder Bruce 04:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested in the hopes of finding reviewer to take over

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]

Hello! I will be doing this second opinion review :) I will be using the ((GAList2)) template to list any errors in the article. The full review should be up in a few days. Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 14:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ActuallyNeverHappened02, wanted to remind you of this as a courtesy, as it's been two months. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer

Per the request above I'll be taking over this review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:52, 17 September 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.
Yes, struck above; I should have noticed that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Good enough; struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Well, it's the date we're using it for, not the image. Can you see the date in other sources? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
allabandoned.com - removed source, didn't add anything.
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.

I'll have a look again at further trimming some of the longer sections too.Stortford (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thanks, Stortford (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds reasonable, and you've convinced me re the coat of arms. I'll have a read through this morning and post some notes here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review:

"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."

Spotchecks still to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

FN 96 cites "The 13 Letchworth councillors on the district council meet as the Letchworth Committee." Verified.
FN 9 cites "Letchworth was a relatively small parish, having a population in 1801 of 67, rising to 96 by 1901". Verified.
FN 174 cites "Harold Gilman (1876–1919) – artist, founder member of the Camden Town Group": verified.
FN 168 cites "The Highfield School was rebuilt in 2016." Verified.

Spotchecks pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thanks Stortford (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thanks again. Stortford (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]