# Talk:Ashtead

Have cleaned up the article, and propose to remove the cleanup tag in a week or two if no objections. Wikipete 14:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems alright to me - I've reformatted the Pepys quote to make sure it conforms to WP:MOS, but I don't see anything else objectionable. I'd like to see a bit more content, of course. -- Scjessey 15:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This might help: Sign -- Scjessey 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Added Rupert Gould. I can't work out how to annotate the reference (8). Litvore (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Currently the article states "Until 1967, Ashtead railway station had "Ashtead" and "Ashstead" displayed on station name plates hanging on opposite platforms".  Anyone got a reference for this interesting fact? Polyamorph (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Ashtead. 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/20101225113156/http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Environment_and_planning/Parks_and_open_spaces/Ashtead_Common/ to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Environment_and_planning/Parks_and_open_spaces/Ashtead_Common/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030192829/http://www.gwp.enta.net/surrnames.htm to http://www.gwp.enta.net/surrnames.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424060625/http://list.english-heritage.org.uk:80/mapsearch.aspx to http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/mapsearch.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090912011534/http://www.pastscape.org.uk:80/hob.aspx?hob_id=397707 to http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=397707
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) 17:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ashtead. 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/20121020022923/http://www.longcross.co.uk/Ashtead to http://www.longcross.co.uk/Ashtead
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=397707
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) 13:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi All!
I've been working on the Ashtead article over the past month or so and would like to nominate it for a Good Article review in a few weeks' time. I'd be very grateful for feedback on how to improve the article further. In particular, I'd appreciate some input into refining the lead section and for any photos that might help illustrate the later sections. Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel like the popular Ashtead nomenclature of "The Village" and "Lower Ashtead" isn't really given any mention. I have not lived in Ashtead since the mid '80s, but I know those terms were prevalent at the time. I found a random site on the web that mentions them, and also some other information that may be of interest, although its worth as a source is questionable. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Scjessey: I agree and the obvious place to introduce and explain these terms is in the location and topography section. As you say, the difficulty is finding a reliable source and I suspect that different residents will have different definitions!
I've never personally lived in Ashtead, but I had school friends who did. I am certainly familiar with the term "Lower Ashtead", which I understood to mean the areas on both sides of Barnett Wood Lane. The A history of Ashtead book edited by J.C. Stuttard uses the strict historical definition (derived from the area of the former Little Ashtead manor) and says that the term should only be used for the rectangle bordered by Barnett Wood Lane, Agates Lane, Ottways Lane and Harriots Lane. Ordnance Survey maps also seem to use the same boundaries. The 'random site' that you've mentioned says that Lower Ashtead is "to the north" - which presumably means around Craddocks Avenue. Do any of these definitions match yours?
I've also heard people talk about "The Village" or "Ashtead Village", by which I think they mean the shops along The Street (A24). I can't find any reference in the Stuttard book. (I will need to go to the library to check the Jackson book and other printed sources.)
It would be really great to incorporate (and define) these terms, but I agree that we will really struggle with finding (a) decent source(s). What do you think? Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
My understanding is not quite the same as yours. I was under the impression "Ashtead Village" is the area surrounding the shops on "The Street" (A24), whereas "Lower Ashtead" is the area surrounded the shops on Craddocks Avenue; however, Google Maps suggests that is not the case and that "Lower Ashtead" is the area to the south of the railway track and the west of Woodfield Lane, which actually makes a lot more sense from a geographical standpoint. Another possibility to consider, and I will admit to pulling this straight out of my arse, is that The Village is at a higher elevation than Lower Ashtead, with the source of The Rye being to the east of Ashtead Park and flowing past my old home in Oak Way before heading towards Ashtead Common. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Google maps is wrong, Craddock parade is certainly lower Ashtead. The "village" around the street (a24) is upper Ashtead. Needs sources though. Polyamorph (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This L&DLHS paper says "The area held by Merton Abbey was a portion of a larger area later known historically as Little Ashtead, or Lower Ashtead, [a term in recent times confusingly transferred to the area near the railway on the north side of Ashtead on road signs and elsewhere]."
This Guardian article says "Lower Ashtead, by the station".
This MVDC document says "North of The Village is Lower Ashtead - an extensive residential area of varying period and character. It includes an important secondary local shopping centre on Craddocks Parade and a smaller parade of shops on Barnett Wood Lane."
I suspect that the MVDC document is the closest we will be able to find to a 'definition' that matches current local opinion as reported by User:Polyamorph. Printed books are likely to stick to the strict historical definition based on the boundaries of Little Ashtead manor.
Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes! The MVDC document more closely aligns with what I thought. For the record, I lived in Ashtead between 1971 and 1988. Went to school at St. Giles, Greville and Therfield. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Scjessey:  @Polyamorph: I have added an additional paragraph under the location and topography heading. I hope this fairly reflects your understanding, the information in the sources and the apparent change in the definition over recent decades. Can you take a look and let me know what you think please? Thanks Mertbiol (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Polyamorph (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Very happy with this, although I think "focused" is probably a more prevalent spelling than "focussed" nowadays. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks both - this has been very helpful. Please let me know if you have comments on the rest of the article. I am planning to submit the GA nomination in mid-June to give others time to leave their feedback. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ashtead/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 10:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. Comments to follow a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 10:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Tim riley: I look forward to receiving your feedback. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


### Review
This is heading rapidly towards GA, meeting all the criteria, as far as I can see, but before I promote it, may I make a few minor suggestions, all of which you are entirely free to disagree with?

"reaching a peak in the 1930s, however future expansion" – If you must use "however" (usually a woolly synonym for a plain "but") it isn't a conjunction and needs a stronger stop than a comma in front of it. Likewise for "Ashtead does not have a parish council, however stakeholder engagement" and "built on the site in the 1950s, however part of the old clay pit is now the Floral Pond".
"The historic core of Ashtead is known locally as 'The Village' … known as 'Lower Ashtead'"  – the Manual of Style requires double quotes, here and for any other single quotes later – 'Henry the Tyler of Asshstede' and so on.
"Edward Aston returned the manor to the crown" – as the former Librarian of the Crown Estate (long retired) I raise my eyebrows at an uncapitalised "crown" here.
"Two common fields, together comprising 194 ha (479 acres)" – strange use of "comprising": you use it in the usual way later ("Today the Common comprises approximately 200 ha"), but here I think you mean something like "constituting" or "totalling" or some such.
"During WWI" – I can't find any dikat in the Manual of Style, but "WWI" looks a bit offhand to me in formal prose. I should prefer "the First World War", but it's entirely up to you.
"several hundred men from the 21st Battalion of the Royal Fusiliers were billetted in the village – the OED prescribes "billeted" rather than "billetted", and I see you use the single-t form later.
"The interwar years" – the OED hyphenates "inter-war".
"during the Battle of Britain and The Blitz" – peculiar capitalisation – one "the" and one "The": looks odd.
"the Leg of Mutton and Cauliflower public house doubled as the village prison" – [how absolutely wonderful!]
"St Giles' Church" – loses its possessive apostrophe between the heading and the text.
"The brick building was designed by Sir Arthur Blomfield" – not by him personally in 1905-06, presumably, as he died in 1899: by his practice, perhaps?
"the whig politician, William Feilding" – it is customary to capitalise Whig when referring to the political party.
"their son, Lawrence was killed in World War I" – not WWI, I see, and is Lawrence's death actually relevant to the article?
Nothing of any great moment in that little list. I shan't bother to put the review on formal hold (unless you wish me to) while you consider these few quibbles. Let me know your thoughts on them and we can proceed to the ribbon-cutting ceremony. Meanwhile, your boozer-cum-bastille has made my day. – Tim riley talk 12:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Tim riley:, thanks very much for reviewing the article so thoroughly. I appreciate that this was a relatively long one to read through. I think I have addressed all your concerns, as indicated in the table below.

Please let me know if you have any further concerns. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, that was quick. I have no remaining reservations, so:


### Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Well referenced.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Well illustrated.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

I enjoyed reviewing this article. The referencing seems to me impeccable, the sources well chosen. There are excellent illustrations, the prose is balanced, neutral and, if I may say so, a pleasure to read. If you decide to take the article to FAC, which I think it merits, be warned that there are those who get sniffy about Local History Societies and whether they are a WP:Reliable source. One can take such purism too far, in my view, and I am quite willing to accept that Jackson, Stuttard and Vardey et al know their stuff, and where else can one turn for local info anyway? Be that as it may, if you go to FAC please ping me and I'll add my two penn'orth. Meanwhile, congrats on a fine piece of work. – Tim riley talk 14:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Tim riley: for your very thorough review. Thanks also to @Scjessey: and @Polyamorph: for their input and encouragement in helping to prepare the article for nomination. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Nice! Well done Mertbiol. Polyamorph (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations Mertbiol on another GA, where next? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)