Talk:Jaywick

message: The style and content is rather refreshing and fun, but not very encyclopedic!  Since I don't know anything much about Jaywick I don't think I could take this on, but maybe if someone could look at whats in other small town pages and make a start here...!
IceDragon64 22:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see anything wrong with the article.  Does anybody object if I remove the NPOV tag? Biscuittin 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style and content 

message: The lede has "According to the Indices of deprivation 2010 part of the village is the most deprived area in England.[1]", which is almost immediately followed by: "East Jaywick was named as the most deprived area in England according to the Indices of deprivation 2010, based on multiple factors including poverty, crime, education and skill levels, unemployment and housing, as assessed in 2008.[1]" This is entirely appropriate, as the lede is supposed to summarise what follows. However, from 
WP:LEADCITE:  "because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body…information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely… to require a source". As the two references are to the same source, supporting  identical pieces of information in the article, are both necessary? The linked policy suggests not. —Old Moonraker (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, no dissenters? Fixing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated references 

message: The article seems to imply that the area was uninhabited until the modern era. But according to my dictionary of British place names, the earliest form of the name Jaywick was recorded in 1438, meaning there must have been a settlement at that date. Zacwill (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article says, "Because of its close proximity to the sea, Jaywick had never been a practical place for farming due to the risk from floods and the land remained unused", and therefore it was pretty much in the middle of nowhere before 1928. I can drop in the 25" map of the area c. 1897 that shows a few houses, but that's pretty much the extent of it. Indeed, that's why Frank Stedman was keen to buy the land, it was considered worthless and cheap. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there ought to be some discussion of this then. "Jaywick was historically a very minor settlement, consisting of a farm and a few cottages." - something like that. Zacwill (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I dropped in this edit earlier. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. I've added to this the name's etymology. Zacwill (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that, I've just tidied it up a bit so to be consistent with some other GAs I've seen (eg: Ashford, Kent, Mersea Island). I don't believe Jaywick is mentioned in the Domesday Book, unless you know different? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They would have said so in the dictionary if it had been. Zacwill (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older history? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jaywick. 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/20141021012229/http://democracy.tendringdc.gov.uk/akstendring/images/att74.doc to http://democracy.tendringdc.gov.uk/akstendring/images/att74.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article appears to have been written by people who have never visited Jaywick. The area of Jaywick mostly described here is the Brooklands area. That is one end of the village. There is a far larger part which is not deprived, and homes can sell at £300,000 plus. 
The article has focused on one estate (i.e. Brooklands) developed as a holiday village, ignoring the rest of the village (in fact, I would be more inclined to describe it as a small town: population 5,000).
I think that, with more research, a much better article could be written.
Marchino61 (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is misleading