Talk:Reading, Berkshire

message: I am working my way through the Good articles listed at Places; having a quick look to see if they still meet the Good article criteria. I have landed on this article. After I've had a quick look, I'll leave a note here indicating if I have concerns or not.
In general, I see the process as this: 1) Give the article a quick look to see if there are obvious issues: maintenance tags, unsourced sections, excessive media, etc, resolving any minor issues as I do so; 2) If I have concerns, open a GAR to see how serious those concerns are, resolving them myself if they are not serious; 3) If during the GAR I feel that there is significant work to be done (more than I can or am willing to do myself), I will put the GAR on hold and notify the main contributors.
My aim and intention is to keep the article listed - I would rather the article was improved and kept listed than the article is delisted. Where a delisting seems likely due to the amount or nature of work needed being greater than I am able to do alone, and the main contributors are unavailable or unable for whatever reason to do the work, then appropriate WikiProjects will be notified at least seven days before a delisting would take place. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some excess media in the article, with occasional squeezing of text; this is against the advice at WP:MOSIM and WP:LAYIM, part of the GA criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

text: The climate and population tables may be against the advice at WP:EMBED, a GA criteria, and against WP:NOTSTAT, a policy. There is, however, a current discussion regarding this at WikiProject Cities, with no clear consensus yet. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

text: There are a number of short paragraphs, which is against the advice at WP:Layout, a GA criteria. The Cultural references section, for example, has five paragraphs, which, given they are all on the same point (cultural references in Reading), should be one paragraph. A series of paragraphs in that section would only be needed if there were sufficient distinction between points being made - but in this case there are not. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

text: The lead does not appear to appropriately summarise the whole of the article, nor does the opening paragraph identify the main points about Reading - it consists, instead, of some detail regarding distance from other towns. That fine detail is of questionable value in the lead, let alone in the first paragraph. See WP:Lead. What are the most important facts about Reading that readers should know in the first paragraph? I'm not sure the answer is that readers should know that it is 36 miles east from Swindon. The facts in the third paragraph seem somewhat more important and interesting. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've had a quick tidy up, nothing serious, and developed the lead a little. I only removed one image, the rest I have just redistributed a bit. Essentially this is a decent article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: GA check

message: Searching Google or Google Books shows that the demonym has generally been "Redingensian" (presumably re-spelled in a Latin style) and not "Readingensian", despite a few sloppy news articles. We should definitely add the better-established "Redingensian" as a demonym, and possibly also remove "Readingensian" as a misspelling -- depending on how much it has caught on in general usage. 86.136.110.44 (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a Redingensian can also be someone who attended the Reading School (an "Old Redingensian" being a former pupil). 86.136.110.44 (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Before taking it further suggest you provide the best source(s) for your contention here. The spelling of historic sources of the town's name are worth referring to also in support of any change.Tmol42 (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect demonym? 

message: I have switched the article back to the previous montage (with The Oracle, Town Hall and St Laurence's Church, Skyline from Reading West, Reading Abbey and Reading Festival) in place of the one recently introduced (with Queen Victoria Street, Bath Road Reservoir, London Road, Reading Town Hall, Reading Railway Station & Reading College). I've done this for two principal reasons:
* The second montage is too long. With 6 sub-images and a less symmetric layout it does not convey an image in the way its symmetric 5 image predecessor with.
* The second montage does not cover the key icons of Reading the way the first does. With the best will in the world, QVC, Bath Road Reservoir, the railway station and Reading College are second-order symbols when compared to Reading Festival and Reading Abbey, both of which are ommitted from the second montage.
I wasn't involved in creating either of the two montages, although apparently I took the photograph of the Abbey back in 2007. I don't think that the first montage is perfect. To me, the central skyline image is a bit wanting. But it is better than the second.
Thoughts?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure the montage adds anything to the article. The only components which are clear at the scale as seen, are the skyline and Abbey. St Laurence includes a lot else besides the subject. Oracle and Festival are just gaudy lights which could be anything. Perhaps a fresh approach is needed. A skyline panoramic, perhaps from a different angle, whilst not flattering, might give a truer view of the town? Other components being used in their sections. SovalValtos (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed a couple of the photos around which you've mentioned. BaldBoris 20:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Better, but the Town Hall + St L pic would only be clear to people who already know which is which. The town hall could be the group of buildings taking up most of the left of the pic. Maybe it is. The Gaol and Hospital are both striking, but I still question the value of a collage. SovalValtos (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead montage 

message: Is the existence of language schools sufficiently notable for a list of some to be included in the page?SovalValtos (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language schools 

message: The article says Reading is twinned with Meaux.  There's no mention of Meaux on the latest version of Borough Council twinning page. or a flyer from last Christmas. It does get a mention in the ref given but, unlike almost all the others on that list, no date is given and it's not clear how reliable that source is.  The Meaux article also gives another ref from the RBC site but the archived versions before (9 May 2013) and after in date (15 February 2014) don't mention Meaux.  There is a mention in a GetReading article but I wouldn't be surprised if their source was Wikipedia and another, more recent article does not mention Meaux. I'm inclined to delete Meaux from the list unless a current, relaible source can be found. Cavrdg (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Twinning with Meaux?

message: The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) is a major international research and operational weather forecasting centre located in Shinfield Park. I'm not British/local, and a very inexperienced editor, so I'm hazy on whether that means makes it eligible for mention on the Reading article, since apparently Shinfield isn't part of the Reading town/borough(?), and ECMWF is actually located just outside the borders of Reading.
I'm not associated with ECMWF in any capacity, at most I have vague hopes of maybe working there at some point in the medium future (a few years off though, at the least).
Jesihvone (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should ECMWF be mentioned on the Reading article? 

message: Hi , I think the IP was trying to add market as an adjective as in market town. I'd agree large, historic market, university and minster town with or without an extra comma after historic would be a bit unwieldy but, if anything, it's including university and minster here that is unusual. Discounting Wimborne, a Google search on Minster Town mainly turns up crossword solutions. I think a large market town would be better here with mention of history, university and minster following. --Cavrdg (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'll take another look, with a view to incorporating the adjectival 'market'. Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revert and how to begin lead 

message: The geography section starts with 'As the crow flies'. This seems rather colloquial for Wikipedia? The sentence would still make sense without it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.251.79 (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited as suggested and corrected the wandering crow's distance to the coast.SovalValtos (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography opening sentence 

message: There is a discussion at talk:Milton Keynes#"Large" town (on whether the adjective 'large' may be used) that applies equally to Reading. Editors of this article may wish to contribute. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The conclusion in summary was that "large" is subjective, no reliable source defines it. Visitors can see the population figure and decide if that counts as large by their standards. WP:WikiProject UK geography has endorsed this conclusion. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

text: The other conclusion was that the wish to say "large town" could be delivered another way: "Reading is the largest town in Berkshire". Done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Large" town 

message: With the death of Elizabeth II in 2022, does the town motto change from A Deo et Regina (With God and Queen) to A Deo et Rex (With God and King)?
Ministry (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Town Motto 

message: I've removed the following - it doesn't seem particularly relevant:
: On 20 June 2020, three people were killed  and three others seriously injured in a mass stabbing at Reading's Forbury Gardens that was treated as a terrorist incident; its perpetrator was later sentenced to a whole-life term.
Ben Aveling 20:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed stabbing