DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Erith

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Erith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor text edits

[edit]

@Bmcln1:

To explain my edits for clarity that were clearly reverted without close reading:

  • You wrote: The early settlement was based around it, so that the centre of Erith was once west of its current location.
  • I wrote: The early settlement was based around it, meaning that the centre of Erith was once west of its current location.

"So" here implies causation. "Meaning" implies inference.

  • New suggestion: The early settlement was based around it, indicating that the centre of Erith was once west of its current location.
  • You wrote: ...recording a grant by the Bishop of the East Saxons of lands at Erith.
  • I wrote: ...recording a grant by the Bishop of the East Saxons of land at Erith.

I acknowledge that there is very little difference here, but my phrasing was a slight modernisation, which I don't consider controversial.

  • You wrote: ...and was until the 1850s essentially a small riverside port, made prominent by King Henry VIII's decision...
  • I reverted to: ...and was until the 1850s essentially a small riverside port, given prominence by King Henry VIII's decision...

"given prominence" is a much more widely used phrasing that "made prominent". I thought about a compromise clearer way of saying it (eg. "given importance") but "given prominence" is the most precise.

  • You wrote: From 1881 an area north-west of Erith's centre was held by a cable works founded by William Callender.
  • I wrote: From 1881 an area north-west of Erith's centre was the site of a cable works founded by William Callender.

I don't know how you came up with "held by", there is no such collocation as "hold an area" that I've heard. I reworded it from the previous poor phrasing, honestly I don't know what the problem is with my new suggestion.

  • You wrote: Engineering became an important industry round Erith, with armaments and cables the main products. Vickers was a major employer and linked to the Royal Arsenal at nearby Woolwich.
  • I wrote: Engineering became an important industry in Erith, with armaments and cables as the main products. Vickers was a major employer, with links to the Royal Arsenal at nearby Woolwich.

"round" Erith is an informal spoken phrasing, I don't know why you changed it from "around", but I changed it to "in" for simplicity and clarity. "With cables as the main products" is clearer and more modern phrasing than "with cables the main products", though both are fine. The use of 'and' in "a major employer and linked to" doesn't clarify the connection between these two attributes, my phrasing attempted to give some context to this connection.

  • You wrote: In 1961, plans were laid to redevelop Erith as a modern, sleek shopping and working environment. This meant clearing sub-standard housing by the riverside and altering the street layout. Some of the buildings erected, such as the social housing tower blocks, have a brutalist form typical of overspill estates put up by councils in major cities as an affordable way to clear the slums.
  • I wrote: In 1961, Erith began to be redeveloped as a modern shopping and working environment, through the clearing of sub-standard housing by the riverside and alterations to the street layout. Some of the new buildings, such as the social housing tower blocks, have a brutalist form typical of overspill estates built by councils in major cities as an affordable way to clear the slums.

Your edits were an improvement on the previous wording of this paragraph, I just tried to tidy it up a bit, smoothen the wording and simplify some phrasing. What about my edits do you object to?

Obviously a minor quibble, but your wording struck me as slightly strange and attributing some kind of agency to the LGA Act, so I changed it back to the clearer wording.

  • You wrote: Since the late 1990s Erith has undergone marked changes, with the Erith Western Thames Gateway project as the culmination.
  • I wrote: Since the late 1990s Erith has undergone marked changes, culminating in the Erith Western Thames Gateway project.

I simplified the phrasing slightly for clarity. What about my edits do you object to?

  • You wrote: Since 2000 a significant number of new flats have been built by the river by private developers.
  • I wrote: Since 2000 a significant number of new flats have been built on the river by private developers.

Edited to avoid repetition of 'by', which I expected would be uncontroversial.

  • You wrote: ...and is expected to continue the regeneration of the area, hitherto a large underused area of the town centre. Bexley Council is seeking there a mixed-use development with a potential of 6,000 sq. m of new commercial space and over 500 new homes.
  • I wrote: ...and is expected to include the regeneration of a large underused area of the town centre, earmarked by Bexley Council for a mixed-use development with up to 6,000 sq. m of new commercial space and over 500 new homes.

Phrasing edited for simplicity and clarity. What about these edits do you object to?

  • You wrote: The median house price in Erith ward was £181,000 in 2014. This was the third lowest out of the 628 wards in Greater London...
  • I wrote: The median house price in Erith ward was £181,000 in 2014, the third lowest of the 628 wards in Greater London...

Edited for smoother wording, avoid duplication of nouns in short clauses, which I did not expect to be controversial.

Honestly can't see how this is controversial. The part of the town in North End is the easternmost, in Colyers the southernmost. We can try and find an alternative wording, but I don't see any problem whatsoever with what I have already suggested.

  • You wrote: The David Ives Stadium next to the Leisure Centre, often called Erith Stadium, houses Bexley Athletic Club.
  • I wrote: The David Ives Stadium next to the Leisure Centre, often called Erith Stadium, is the home track of Bexley Athletic Club.

'houses' implies that something is inside/indoors. This stadium is not that. The previous wording of "is the home of" was not terribly encyclopaedic, so I tried to find a clear rephrasing that said what it meant. What is your objection to my suggestion?

Again, no distinction in meaning, but I chose a slightly less oblique wording for clarity and ease of reading for eg. non-native speakers who might be reading.

Your version is grammatically incorrect. Manchester United play at Old Trafford, Erith & Belvedere play at Park View Road. Perhaps you are American, in which case fair enough, the difference is down to dialect, but this article is about a British topic, so it's common practice to use British English.

Regarding references for the list of notable people, yes, all the entries on this list need references establishing that they are connected to Erith. If they are lacking, it's because I couldn't find them when I was sourcing this list. If there are references on the individuals' articles, by all means add them here, but the tags are appropriate.

There was a verb missing. This was clearly an editing error, which I corrected, again uncontroversially, I would hope. The fact that this was also reverted indicates that you did not examine my edits closely before reverting en masse.

I'm more than happy to discuss any/all of the above changes, but I would ask you to at least read changes before you revert them and accuse other editors of "fiddling" with yours. Because that's how Wikipedia works, it's a continuous improvement by all editors of the existing text. Cheers. Jdcooper (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I read them. Nothing much wrong with most, but mine are shorter, which is a consideration. Bmcln1 (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they are shorter, more than a couple of characters? I'm reverting on the basis of my above explanations. Of course feel free to adjust my text, but preferably with some indication why either here or in edit summary. Cheers! Jdcooper (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]