Talk:Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries since 1844

Title

I have moved the article to fix the capitalisation problem per WP:CAPS, but think a better title would be Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries per WP:NOUN. I will move it to this if there are no objections. Ground Zero | t 07:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Enclave/exclaves

Why do Feckenham, Kington and Church Lench appear in the table, when they are and always were in Worcestershire? I have also made some adjustmetns to the text relating to the northern boundary, but am uncertain whether this is supported by the referneces which are cited. If not, the sources are incorrect. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dudley

I have reverted the change of Dudley leaving Worcestershire in 1974, back to it leaving in 1966 (adding an explanation). As a County Borough, the council fulfilled all local government functions. Accordingly, the county in which it lay was almost a semantic question. One area where it continued to matter was the execution of High Court writs, which were the responsibility of the sheriff, though undertaken by officers working for the under-sheriff. Under the 1966 arrangements, the urban district of Ambelcote was split between Stourbridge and the new County Borough. The shirevalty boundaries were altered to conform, so that the part of Amblecote that was in Stourbridge was dealt with by the under-sheriff at Worcester and the part added to Dudley (with the rest of the County Borough) was dealt with by the under-sheriff at Stafford. This boundary continued to apply after 1974. I know this as in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as a solicitor, one had to know which under-sheriff to send writs to. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Thus culminating with the creation of the West Midlands County and Worcestershire's brief merger with Herefordshire.[2]

In the true sense of the word culminate the culmination would have been the separation back into the two traditional counties (when all of us on both sides of the hills breathed a huge sigh of relief). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point there...I'll look at a way of rewording it. Thanks Bellow558 (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I admire your courage with this history of Worcs and sincerely hope that the article will become a GA. I'm sure it will, but believe me, anyone who has been subject to those county boundary changes over just the last 60 or so years as I have, is confused. UK governments, like no other Western European country, are obsessed with constantly changing local government boundaries and municipal status. It's usually due to successive governments trying to engineer the areas of population in order to create safe seats in regions of piebald pockets of heavy industry (left wing such as north Worcs), and extremely agricultural (right wing) such as the Vale of Evesham, West Worcs, athe vast p[astoral tracts of the Malvern Hills and the whole of Herefordshire. What would help of course would be an animated gif of the boundary vhanges, but it's not mandatory for a Wikipedia article., althoigh a horizontal timeline may help reduce some of tghe confusion.

I've noticed that some of your phraseology is slightly repetitive at times, which often happens in long articles. When the review is almost finished, I'll give it a final CE for style. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 21:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this; I'll add comments here as I go through the article. It might be several days till I complete it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been through the article a couple of times, and before I comment on the good article criteria, I'd like to ask about scope. From the title of the article it would appear that it covers the entire evolution of the county, from its formation. If that's so, I would expect to see some material about the earliest mention of the county, the earliest known definite boundaries, and more about the granting of the various exclaves, and so on. However, I suspect that the right answer is that this article should be moved to a title such as "Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries (1844 to present day)". Is that the case? If so, let's agree on a name, and we can move the article after completing the review (I think it's a bit messy to move it while the review is going on, because of the GA nomination subpage). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mike...thanks for your initial comment about the articles scope. Whilst researching for the article and despite the complex nature of Worcestershire's external boundaries, there doesn't seem to be much alteration until 1844, except for the changes affecting Halesowen & Oldbury, Clent, Broome and Tardebigge. The main changes concerned the internal structures within the individual hundreds, which were reduced in number over time. So I thought a general overview of what happened before 1844 might give a good background to what was about to happen from 1844 onwards.

However; I accept your view that the article is lacking some depth before 1844 and the article title could be opened up to several interpretations. So I would be happy for the title to be amended to what is suggested. Bellow558 (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

OK -- we can figure out the exact title once the review is completed.

I think the article is not structured in the easiest way for a reader to follow. Have you considered a more purely chronological sequence for the start of the article? I would have expected a section sequence something like 1. Boundaries as of 1844 (mentions exclaves, gives the map you have, describes the then-current structure of hundreds and parishes; 2. Detached parts act of 1844 (explain motivation and effect, mention that the 1931 act will do more along these lines); 3. Birmingham, more or less as you have it now; 4. 1931 act (not sure if this is necessary, or could be included in (2); 5. Remaining sections as you have them. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mike...I've taken that on board and have rearranged the start of the article to a more chronological order. I've also renamed some of the sections, sub-sections and expanded on the "Counties (Detached) Act 1844", separation of the "Provisional Order Confirmation (Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire) Act 1931" and a few minor alterations. I feel happier with how its looking now Bellow558 (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks -- I do think that's a better organization. I'll go ahead and start a more detailed review; I'll add notes here as I go through.

Collapsed notes repeated in subsequent discussion

The first sentences of the body don't flow very well. "Worcestershire's boundaries were relatively stable before the Victorian era. Notwithstanding the 'gift' of Hala (Halas or Hales) to Roger de Montgomerie, the 1st Earl of Shrewsbury in the late 11th Century by William the Conqueror or other parishes and Manors within the county that were given by the Monarch, Church or through conquest, thus creating enclaves or exclaves." First, I don't know that we can really say that the boundaries were relatively stable -- there are several substantial exclaves and enclaves, after all. Or were most of the exclaves and enclaves created during the Norman period, so that the boundaries had been stable for centuries by 1844? I'm also not sure that the mention of Hala (with the unexplained parenthesis -- are those alternate spellings?) makes sense the way it's presented here. Presumably it's mentioned because it's an example of the process of creating exclaves? If we have sources that say so, I think we should phrase it that way -- say that the main cause of changes to the boundaries was royal grants, and that Hala is an example. In the text of the article you mention that Rochford, Broome, Clent, and Tardebigge are all exclaves of other counties inside Worcestershire. Would it be possible to show these on the map of Worcestershire showing the hundreds and Worcestershire's own exclaves? Or are they too small? I now realize there's one enclave marked, but not named, northeast of Droitwich. Is that Halesowen? It would be good to mark it if so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC) 'Until 1 April 1889; Worcestershire was administrated by a combination of hundreds and by municipal boroughs, parishes, rural sanitary districts and poor law unions. Each hundred was also sub-divided into "divisions". Worcestershire's remaining hundreds prior to the reforms were Blakenhurst, Doddingtree, Halfshire, Oswaldslow and Pershore.' I think the mention of rural sanitary districts and poor law unions, is unnecessary, and a bit confusing for the reader, at this point. We're still just trying to give the reader the picture as of 1844, and the mention of administrative units that aren't mentioned again in the article, and an act of 45 years later, don't really help. How about "In 1844, the main administrative organizations (or units?) below the county level were the hundreds (insert a couple of words explanation, since most people have never heard of hundreds), the municipal boroughs, which were formed around the largest towns, and the city of Worcester, which was a county corporate (insert another short explanation). There were four municipal boroughs in Worcestershire: <list>, and five hundreds <list>; the hundreds were further subdivided into either two or three "divisions"." Then explain the situation with the parishes. Actually, writing the above makes me realize that I don't understand the relationship between parishes and divisions: were the parishes always in one division or another, or could a parish cross divisions? You never mention divisions in the remainder of the article, so would it be simpler if they were omitted here too, or would that be misleading? The discussion of Warley Wigorn, Cradley and Lutley doesn't say where these are on the map. Also, I find that discussion very confusing. What does "by virtue remained as part of Worcestershire" mean? Is there a word missing there? Then you mention that Cradley and Lutley remained in the county and didn't become part of Shropshire; but they are apparently in Halesowen, which was a detached part of Shropshire and which became part of Worcs in 1844, so why would Cradley and Lutley "become" part of Shropshire? Surely they were part of Shropshire, and in 1844 became part of Worcs? Is there any reason to pull out the Halfshire changes into a table, as you have done, but not do the same for the other hundreds? The "Local Government Act 1888" section is really about all the changes until 1958, so perhaps it should be retitled "1888-1958". "Within a short space of time of the county's incorporation": I'm not sure what event is meant by "incorporation" here. "Greater Birmingham Scheme": what is this? A piece of legislation? If a link can't be provided to another Wikipedia article, could we have an explanatory parenthesis or footnote? In the discussion of Dudley and Smethwick, you don't say whether the transfer was to or from Worcestershire. "still consisted of many enclaves and exclaves irrespective of county". What is meant by "irrespective of county"? Would it be possible to have a map of the districts created in 1894? Either as of 1894, or any time after that point? The West Midlands Special Review Area discussion initially makes it sound that this was just a set of recommendations, but then at appears that the recommendations were actually implemented. Was the ability to implement these changes without further legislation written into the 1958 act, or was a separate act passed? "However; the renamed authority - Warley County Borough was to be associated with Worcestershire for ceremonial reasons": A couple of things here. First, should that be "for ceremonial purposes" at the end -- i.e. it was associated with what is now called the ceremonial county of Warwickshire? If so, isn't this an anachronism, since that term wasn't in use back then? Also, the article on Warley County Borough indicates that it came into existence in 1966, but that's not apparent from this article. Did it in fact not exist till 1966? It's not clear why the designation of Redditch as a New Town would cause a shift in the county in belongs to -- can you explain? The Redcliffe-Maud Report was apparently not adopted in its original form; I think that should be stated in that section. It looks like a version of the ideas resurfaced in the 1970s. What does the abbreviation "MB" stand for in Fig. 4? I think it must be "metropolitan borough", but the abbreviation should be introduced before being used. A related point is that metropolitan boroughs are never mentioned in the article -- at least, some individual ones are, but it's not clear which act created them. Are these just another name for the urban districts created by the 1888 act? Do the terms "district" and "borough" have well-defined meanings? I think it would help the reader to introduce the 1974-1998 section by making it clear that these changes are the implementation of the 1972 act, not a separate event. Why is "Lye & Wollescote" in quotes? "(including the "post-1998" Worcestershire)": the reader doesn't yet know that Worcestershire is going to come back into existence, so I think this parenthesis needs a little more explanation. It might be worth mentioning at some point in the article that civil parishes diverged from ecclesiastical parishes; the early part of the article is talking about the latter, but by the 20th century these are administrative parishes. According the civil parish article the split dates from 1866. I think a better definition of "unitary authority" is needed; the first time they're mentioned is in the section on the Redcliffe-Maud report, which as far as I can tell was never adopted. I assume this idea remained in the subsequent 1972 legislation. A general question: I'm making a lot of comments above about subsidiary concepts such as boroughs, districts and authorities. I think it would be possible to write this article as more of a list, simply showing a long list of changes and the dates, perhaps with a short note about the cause of each one. I'm assuming that's not the intention here, though; I'm treating the article as essentially a historical review, and so I'm assuming that the underlying legislation and administrative hierarchies need to be clear to the reader. If I'm asking for things you think don't belong in the article, please say so.

That's it for now; please let me know what you think about the comments above. I do have some copyediting concerns, but I don't think those can be addressed till we get the content right. I will place the article on hold to give you time to respond. The article has some great information in it, including some very good maps; I'm impressed. However, I do think there's quite a bit of work to do to make the article clear and complete. If you prefer, I can fail the article for GA, which would give more time to work on it. I'd be happy to collaborate with you on improving the article outside GA, though I'm busy and wouldn't always respond quickly. Let me know what you'd like to do. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Collapsed notes from first pass, now dealt with

Hi Mike...I apologise for not contacting you soon, I've been busy over the last few days. Lets see how I can clean it up as a GA candidate and take it from there. I'll have a look at the two main sentences a bit later on today or tomorrow, but I have answered and/or amended the other points which are below... In the text of the article you mention that Rochford, Broome, Clent, and Tardebigge are all exclaves of other counties inside Worcestershire. Would it be possible to show these on the map of Worcestershire showing the hundreds and Worcestershire's own exclaves? Or are they too small? I now realize there's one enclave marked, but not named, northeast of Droitwich. Is that Halesowen? It would be good to mark it if so. Can I just ask which map we are talking about here please? Fig. 1; this comment is now covered by my note below about the 1844 section. The discussion of Warley Wigorn, Cradley and Lutley doesn't say where these are on the map. The discussion about these three manors were added later than the map, I'll have to amend the map to show the locations. Also, I find that discussion very confusing. What does "by virtue remained as part of Worcestershire" mean? Is there a word missing there? Then you mention that Cradley and Lutley remained in the county and didn't become part of Shropshire; but they are apparently in Halesowen, which was a detached part of Shropshire and which became part of Worcs in 1844, so why would Cradley and Lutley "become" part of Shropshire? Surely they were part of Shropshire, and in 1844 became part of Worcs? When King William I gave away the land to his faithful lieutenants, because of their loyalty to him through various battles. He decided to give the Halesowen parish to several individuals. Earl Roger was given most of the parish and decided to place it in his county of Shropshire. Another person was given the manors of Cradley, Lutley and Warley (Wigorn) who kept them in Worcestershire. So they became exclaves within an exclave. That helps. I don't think the article makes this clear, though. I now see by comparing Fig. 2 with Fig. 1 that the detached part of Worcs in Staffs is Dudley: [1] in Fig. 2. Then [2] is Halesowen parish. So if I have this right, [2] is part of Shropshire prior to 1844, but contains Warley Wigorn, Cradley, and Lutley, which are Worcs. Halesowen is marked on Fig. 1 in the light grey of Shropshire -- aha. Now I think I understand. So it's an exclave of Shropshire but it's not completely surrounded by Worcs or Staffs; it borders both of them. This has to be the most confusing article I've ever read (and that's a comment on the topic, not on your work). Then when Halesowen returns to Worcs in 1844, those three exclaves of Worcs suddenly aren't exclaves any more. If that's right, I'll have a go at rephrasing for clarity. But I really think Halesowen has to be marked on Fig. 1. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I've contacted User:XrysD to see if he can amend his 1832 map. Sorry...it is difficult to try and explain about all the changes to Worcestershire's borders, especially when the boundaries and the exclaves etc made no sense! Bellow558 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Is there any reason to pull out the Halfshire changes into a table, as you have done, but not do the same for the other hundreds? Halfshire was the the main hundred that contained outliers from surrounding counties. So the map and table signified these islands and how they were incorporated into Worcestershire, or left the county. I see. I don't understand the basis for the table, though: the article lists 20 or so parishes of Halfshire in the section above, but doesn't include them in the table; some parishes that are included have not changed at all, though -- so what are the criteria for inclusion in the table? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I was concentrating on the parishes that could be regarded as exclaves, either formed part of surrounding counties, or were exclaves within other hundreds. Do you think it might be more straightforward just to remove Fig 2 and the Halfshire table? Bellow558 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Well, I think we're agreed the article is not going to really discuss the "internal" exclaves, right? That's out of scope (probably another article there). I was going to suggest that the Halfshire table be restricted only to parishes or areas that actually move from one county to another, but looking through I see that would include Upper Arley, which didn't transfer till 1895. Given that this is part of a section about the 1844 act, I'd suggest moving the table to the Halfshire article, where it can be given a more detailed explanation. For this article, I think the reader needs to start with an understanding of the Fig. 1 map, which shows four boroughs and Worcester in addition to the hundreds. So how about changing the lead in to the table in the prior section (the table of hundreds) to say "Prior to the 1844 Act, Worcestershire main administrative divisions were five hundreds (a county subdivision), four separate boroughs for the larger towns (Bewdley, Kidderminster, Droitwich, and Evesham), and Worcester itself, which was a county corporate. Neither Worcester nor the boroughs were part of the hundreds." Okay...I've amended the lead, however I'm not sure about the sentence "Neither Worcester nor the boroughs were part of the hundreds", which implies the boroughs had autonomy over the hundreds. I haven't read any research that has said this, although they were responsible for a lot of the roles that would be carried out by the hundreds or poor law unions etc. I've phrased it like this Worcester was autonomous from Worcestershire and the boroughs had a certain degree of autonomy within the hundreds. unless evidence comes to light that states the boroughs had full autonomy from the hundreds. The county corporate's were totally autonomous, also Dudley received a great deal of autonomy through being the seat of the 'Manor of Dudley'. Bellow558 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC) This would give the reader the initial setup and would match the map in Fig. 1. Then the table gives more details. This would eliminate the need for the sentence starting "The main exception..." after the table. I'm not sure we need the sentence about St. John in Bedwardine either -- it has no bearing on the county boundaries, does it? Then your paragraph starting "The fractured layout ..." points out to the reader what a mess it was. That gives us the state of play in at the start of 1844. I think you could consider adding a table at this point listing all the exclaves and enclaves as of 1844; it's not really necessary because everything is covered later, but it would give an 1844 reference point for the reader to look back at when reading about the later changes, so maybe it would help. The reason why I included St. John-in-Bedwardine township was that it was in effect an 'external' boundary change. The township went from Worcestershire control to the City of Worcester jurisdiction. I'm happy to disregard this if you feel that it is an 'internal' boundary change. Okay...I've created an exclave table for those outliers of Worcestershire and other counties islands within Worcestershire as a point of reference. Bellow558 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Then in the 1844 Act section, I think we need to only cover the changes that happened in that act. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Okay...that would make sense because of the exclaves table in the previous section, which gives a reference point to the future changes. Bellow558 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC) The "Local Government Act 1888" section is really about all the changes until 1958, so perhaps it should be retitled "1888-1958". Title page renamed OK -- struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC) "Within a short space of time of the county's incorporation": I'm not sure what event is meant by "incorporation" here. Sentence reworded Sorry, I still don't follow. You now have "the administrative county's formation", but what is "the administrative county"? Do you mean Worcs County Council? Or are you referring to the whole structure -- "the formation of the new administrative structure for the county"? I think you must mean the latter, and if so I'd suggest "within a short time after the 1888 act", as being less confusing and a clearer definition of the point of reference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I've reworded it Bellow558 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC) OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Greater Birmingham Scheme": what is this? A piece of legislation? If a link can't be provided to another Wikipedia article, could we have an explanatory parenthesis or footnote? This legislation was also known as the "Greater Birmingham Act", so I've changed the name and referenced this. Struck; I went ahead and redlinked the act since it is sure to be notable enough for an article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC) In the discussion of Dudley and Smethwick, you don't say whether the transfer was to or from Worcestershire. This has been reworded to signify one county gained in one alteration and lost in the other. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC) "still consisted of many enclaves and exclaves irrespective of county". What is meant by "irrespective of county"? The area in particular where the three counties of Warwick, Gloucester and Worcester meet consists of islands from each others counties. According to the maps...it was very confusing. So I've reworded it to emphasis this. Much clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Would it be possible to have a map of the districts created in 1894? Either as of 1894, or any time after that point? I wanted to concentrate mainly on the external boundaries of the county, not the internal ones after the 'outliers' were incorporated during 1844. I feel concentrating further on the district's may divert away from the main function of the article. The changes to Worcestershire's internal boundaries could always form part of a new article or form a part of the "History of Worcestershire". Yes, fair enough -- the county boundaries are complicated enough by themselves. However, there are a couple of specifically named districts such as Balsall Heath that would be good to identify on a map. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC) The West Midlands Special Review Area discussion initially makes it sound that this was just a set of recommendations, but then at appears that the recommendations were actually implemented. Was the ability to implement these changes without further legislation written into the 1958 act, or was a separate act passed? Part of the Local Government Act 1958 legislated for a 'Special Review Area' to be set up within the West Midlands region, so the recommendations became law as the West Midlands Order 1965. I've expanded the end sentence of the discussion to emphasis this. Better, but I would suggest specifically naming the "West Midlands Order 1965" in that paragraph so the reader makes the connection explicitly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Ok...I see your point there, I've inserted an acknowledgement to the legislation. Bellow558 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC) OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC) However; the renamed authority - Warley County Borough was to be associated with Worcestershire for ceremonial reasons": A couple of things here. First, should that be "for ceremonial purposes" at the end -- i.e. it was associated with what is now called the ceremonial county of Warwickshire? If so, isn't this an anachronism, since that term wasn't in use back then? Also, the article on Warley County Borough indicates that it came into existence in 1966, but that's not apparent from this article. Did it in fact not exist till 1966? The county borough's were 'counties within a county', so they were for all intents and purposes a unitary authority, however they were still 'associated' with a county. Smethwick was a county borough associated with Staffordshire that was enlarged in 1966 to include Rowley Regis (also from Staffordshire) and Oldbury (from Worcestershire) to form an enlarged county borough known as Warley. In turn...the West Midlands order 1966 placed Warley under the county of Worcestershire, although it wasn't administrated by Worcestershire County Council. I have slightly reworded this sentence. OK, that's certainly clearer. I still think it's confusing to have the description of Warley County Borough's creation given in a paragraph about the 1961 report, without giving any other date information. A separate question is what it means for a piece of land to be "in" the county of Worcestershire. I (perhaps naively) have always assumed that every piece of land in England (except perhaps the Debatable Lands) has at any given time been part of exactly one county. It may not have been administered by that county's county council, but it was either in Worcestershire or it wasn't. I think that's how most readers will think. In those terms, by "associated with a county", I assume you mean that that area was "in" the county. Is that right? If so I think it's going to be less confusing to just say Warley County Borough was "part of Worcestershire" rather than "associated with Worcestershire". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Okay...I take your point there and I will amend it to emphasise that. Although I don't want readers to perceive that the county borough's were administrated by the respective county council, when they were autonomous in local government affairs. The historic or traditional county of Worcestershire has/had different boundaries to Worcestershire County Council's administrative boundaries. Bellow558 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC) It's not clear why the designation of Redditch as a New Town would cause a shift in the county in belongs to -- can you explain? Sentence reworded to make this situation clearer That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC) The Redcliffe-Maud Report was apparently not adopted in its original form; I think that should be stated in that section. It looks like a version of the ideas resurfaced in the 1970s. This section was enlarged to explain what happened. Much clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC) What does the abbreviation "MB" stand for in Fig. 4? I think it must be "metropolitan borough", but the abbreviation should be introduced before being used. The Fig.4 map is colour coded and does refer to MB as 'Municipal Borough', so the explanation follows this. However as Municipal Borough and Metropolitan Borough are similar, I've altered the Fig 4 explanation to show this... A related point is that metropolitan boroughs are never mentioned in the article -- at least, some individual ones are, but it's not clear which act created them. Are these just another name for the urban districts created by the 1888 act? Do the terms "district" and "borough" have well-defined meanings? The term "Metropolitan" was introduced as a name for a county or district in 1974. The difference was that Metropolitan Districts (renamed Borough's after a while) carried a great deal more services than the equivalent 'non-metropolitan' districts. The follow-up legislation which abolished the Metropolitan county council's saw the districts become unitary (much like the former county borough's). I've added a sentence to emphasise this. I think it would help the reader to introduce the 1974-1998 section by making it clear that these changes are the implementation of the 1972 act, not a separate event. Sentence altered to emphasise that... Why is "Lye & Wollescote" in quotes? This has been amended to feature just Wollescote, which is factually more correct. (including the "post-1998" Worcestershire)": the reader doesn't yet know that Worcestershire is going to come back into existence, so I think this parenthesis needs a little more explanation. Sentence altered slightly I don't think you can say " Rubery remained within Hereford & Worcester...and does so to this day", since it is now in Worcestershire, not in Hereford & Worcester. How about "Rubery remained in within Hereford & Worcester...and remained in Worcestershire after the county was recreated in 1998"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I've only just seen this...I will amend the text Bellow558 (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC) That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC) It might be worth mentioning at some point in the article that civil parishes diverged from ecclesiastical parishes; the early part of the article is talking about the latter, but by the 20th century these are administrative parishes. According the civil parish article the split dates from 1866. I really didn't want to get side tracked too much into divisions or sub-divisions etc. However I've introduced a new sub-section called "Civil Parish" and added a bit more to the renamed section concentrating on the 'Local Government Act 1894'. I think the bit you've added is good, though if you do decide to move the Halfshire table to the Halfshire article I'm not sure if that material will stay where it is. Also, it seems odd that the division dates to 1865 but was introduced in 1866 legislation -- can that be clarified? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I think it might be easier taking out the Halfshire table and picture altogether, it now appears out of context altogether. Bellow558 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I think a better definition of "unitary authority" is needed; the first time they're mentioned is in the section on the Redcliffe-Maud report, which as far as I can tell was never adopted. I assume this idea remained in the subsequent 1972 legislation. Not in the 1972 legislation which recommended a 'two-tier' administrative system for metropolitan and non-metropolitan administrative units. The term 'unitary' came about following the Local Government Act 1992 legislation, however the metropolitan districts became 'single-tier' in 1986...although the term unitary wasn't used. Local Government Act 1992 expanded to give more of an explanation about unitary authorities. I think that does it. I added a parenthetical definition of "unitary" at the earlier use of the term. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Yes that's useful...adding it in a 'meaning' sense, even though the word became official terminology much later Bellow558 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC) A general question: I'm making a lot of comments above about subsidiary concepts such as boroughs, districts and authorities. I think it would be possible to write this article as more of a list, simply showing a long list of changes and the dates, perhaps with a short note about the cause of each one. I'm assuming that's not the intention here, though; I'm treating the article as essentially a historical review, and so I'm assuming that the underlying legislation and administrative hierarchies need to be clear to the reader. If I'm asking for things you think don't belong in the article, please say so. There is a list page, but I thought an article explaining the events would be beneficial. I agree; I've struck this point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Okay...please let me know what you think of the answers/amendments. Thanks again! Bellow558 (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Hi Mike...Here's the remainder of the suggestions The first sentences of the body don't flow very well. "Worcestershire's boundaries were relatively stable before the Victorian era. Notwithstanding the 'gift' of Hala (Halas or Hales) to Roger de Montgomerie, the 1st Earl of Shrewsbury in the late 11th Century by William the Conqueror or other parishes and Manors within the county that were given by the Monarch, Church or through conquest, thus creating enclaves or exclaves." First, I don't know that we can really say that the boundaries were relatively stable -- there are several substantial exclaves and enclaves, after all. Or were most of the exclaves and enclaves created during the Norman period, so that the boundaries had been stable for centuries by 1844? I'm also not sure that the mention of Hala (with the unexplained parenthesis -- are those alternate spellings?) makes sense the way it's presented here. Presumably it's mentioned because it's an example of the process of creating exclaves? If we have sources that say so, I think we should phrase it that way -- say that the main cause of changes to the boundaries was royal grants, and that Hala is an example. These sentences have caused me problems...however since we agreed on the scope for the article, it perhaps would be easier for the information about 'Hala' to be incorporated into another article such as the History of Worcestershire for instance. My newest article about Shropshire (Detached) also features this information, although enlarged. The spelling of Hala, Halas, Hales, Hales-owen, Halesowen did change multiple times over the centuries. I agree; this material is better in another article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC) In the text of the article you mention that Rochford, Broome, Clent, and Tardebigge are all exclaves of other counties inside Worcestershire. Would it be possible to show these on the map of Worcestershire showing the hundreds and Worcestershire's own exclaves? Or are they too small? Broome, Clent, Halesowen and Tardebigge are all featured on the Halfshire map...which also shows Halfshire's own exclaves in other hundreds. I can always ask the person who originally designed the pre-1832 county map to incorporate some more information about the exclaves? Bellow558 (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I'll strike this and add some comments to the discussion of the maps below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks; I have about forty minutes now and will look through, and may have time to post some replies tonight. Just FYI, though, I'm fine with you posting your replies interspersed with my comments, indented after each bullet -- I know from experience that it's much easier to interact over these issues that way; and that way you don't have to copy my comments down below in order to reply. Whatever you prefer is fine, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Bellow558, sorry I've been slow about this review; I've been out of town for a few days and am hoping to have time tonight and over the weekend to work on this. I appreciate the link to the list article -- that's very helpful in clarifying what happened. I'll return to your comments above, but for a moment I'd like to focus on the first section on the "Boundaries before 1844", because I'm still a bit confused about the state of affairs in 1844. The map (Fig. 1) shows at least eight detached parts of Worcestershire, and one island of Warwickshire in Worcestershire. The list article only lists "Icomb and the hamlets of Alstone and Little Washbourne" as transferring to other counties; but presumably all or most of these detached parts would have transferred. So that's one question: Why are only three things listed as transferring but clearly there are many more detached parts shown on the map? Conversely, you list multiple places as part of Halesowen that move from Shropshire to Worcestershire, but these don't appear to marked on the map. With such a multitude of names it's very difficult to mark all of them clearly, but I think the reader should be able to draw a better correspondence between the map and the text than they can now. Also, the paragraph about the act lists exclaves inside Worcestershire as follows: "These were found at Rochford, Broome, Clent, Tardebigge (Tutnall and Cobley) and Halesowen respectively and were transferred to or rejoined Worcestershire in October 1844". This doesn't seem to match the list article, which mentions Broom, Clent and Rochford, adds a list of other places in Halesowen parish, and doesn't mention Tardebigge. And all these descriptions are very hard to follow since they're not marked on Fig. 1. To summarize that (rather confused) paragraph into a series of questions: What are the detached parts of Worcestershire that are shown on Fig. 1 but don't appear to be mentioned in the section on the 1844 act? Blockley, Shipston-on-Stour, Dudley, Alderminster, Tredington, Staunton, Daylesford, Redmarley D'Abitot and Evenlode. Bellow558 (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC) What is the large enclave inside Worcestershire shown in Fig. 1 northeast of Droitwich? Tardebigge Bellow558 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Why doesn't the list article mention Tardebigge? According to British History online "A History of the County of Worcester: volume 3" Until 1831 the hamlet of Tutnall and Cobley was in Warwickshire, but by the Acts of 1832 and 1844 (fn. 6) it was transferred to the county of Worcester. The first Act was regarding the alteration of Member of Parliament (Reform Act 1832 & Parliamentary Boundaries Act 1832) to match the surrounding county, the second Act was the full integration through the 'Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844'. Bellow558 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't follow -- why does this imply that the list article doesn't need to mention Tardebigge? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I haven't edited or contributed to the list article, so I can't say why it hasn't been included. Once I get this GA review completed, I'll (or someone) edit that page to include Tardebigge. Bellow558 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Why doesn't this article mention the other places in Halesowen parish that the list article mentions? Those were townships, hamlets, villages etc that formed part of the Halesowen Parish within Shropshire. I could always say "Halesowen, along with....transferred to Worcs" Bellow558 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I see. I'll think about this; might be a better way to phrase it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I've included some of the larger settlements in the new exclave/enclave table, plus Netherton in relation to Dudley Bellow558 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Can the placenames for the 1844 changes (at least the main ones) be given on a map, either on Fig. 1 or a revised version of it that only shows the 1844 changes? I've contacted the author of the map to see if some more of the exclaves can be added. Bellow558 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I think that's necessary -- see comments below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I'll go back up to your comments now and add some responses there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Looking through again I now realize that the southeastern exclaves are covered by the 1931 section. That doesn't change the need to identify them, preferably on the map, but at least to say in the 1844 section that after the act Worcs was still left with X, Y and Z exclaves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Okay...I'll have a look at that Bellow558 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I've reread the relevant bits of the article along with the maps and your explanation above. In the discussion of the Halfshire table, above, I suggested that we change the lead sentence of the "Boundaries before 1844" section to clearly define the structure. I also suggested a list of the exclaves and enclaves at that time, but on reflection I think creating a modified version of the map so it shows (and names) all the enclaves and exclaves is a better way to go. The map should give the name (preferably labelled on the map, if there's room, but if not, then listed in a key with identifying colours or numbers) of every piece of land that is mentioned in the article as moving. If the areas are too small to be a distinct area on a map of this scale, a labelled dot is fine. To be honest we are talking about at least twenty different parishes/places that were exclaves in Worcestershire or belonged to Worcestershire but situated elsewhere, then there was an additional fifteen-twenty separate parts of Warley Wigorn alone. So labeling on a map could be very difficult. Unless there is eventually a series of maps concentrating just on the exclaves. However I don't wish to go too far down this route because the articles focus is about the evolution of the boundaries, not just the fate of the exclaves/enclaves. That was a key instigation of change and it's fascinating to think how fragmented the county was, but it is only a part of the overall story.Bellow558 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC) By the way, there's a tiny dark red dot under the "O" of Droitwich on the map -- is that an exclave of Droitwich or an error in the map? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I haven't noticed anything before...I'll take a closer look, but it sounds like an error as there were no more exclaves around Droitwich Bellow558 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hiya Mike...I've put this at the bottom of the review, because hopefully this will stand out despite the indented conversation. I've made a major alteration to the article, where I've inserted a section about the 'Exclaves & Enclaves', which sits between 'The Hundreds' and 'Counties (Detached Parts) 1844 Act'. Some of the text relating to the exclaves/enclaves have been placed into this section leaving the 1844 Act text about the legislation. I've also added an exclave table and also edited the 1832 map to create three smaller maps highlighting a part of the county, giving the locations of the absolute majority of the exclaves/enclaves. So what we have now is the location of the exclaves, which county the exclave was part of prior to 1844, which county it was transferred to. the year of transfer and under which legislation. Hopefully this new section will now give the reader a better context to what the county was like immediately before 1844 when the alterations commenced. I hope you agree with this new section. Now the problem we have is that because of the new sections content, I feel that the table and map highlighting Halfshire is now redundant, so can we agree to remove these? Bellow558 (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a huge help. The gallery of Worcs exclave details is exactly what's needed. I'll read over again now and add some more comments, but yes, I think the table and map of Halfshire can now be moved to the Halfshire article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

OK, I think everything above has been addressed, but there have been quite a few changes so I am going to go through the article again. As before, I'll add comments as I go through.

• I've done some copyediting, particularly to the section on Warley Wigorn etc., since I found that a very difficult sequence to follow. I tried to preserve the meaning and put the citations in the correct places, but please revert if I've screwed anything up (or if you don't like my copyedit). Looking in more detail at the north Worcestershire map, I see that there were more than three islands in Halesowen -- were these fragmented parts of the Warley Wigorn? If so, my copyedit probably needs tweaking to say that, since I have it referring to three islands.

  According to A vision of Britain through time Warley Wigorn contained between fifteen to twenty parts. Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  I tweaked my copyedit accordingly and cited the website. Please revise if I screwed anything up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• The exclaves and enclaves table and pictures are a big improvement. I think it's necessary to include the legend from the original map of the 1832 administrative boundaries, though, because otherwise the reader has no idea what the colours mean. I think the best way to do that is probably just to include the map of the whole county in the gallery, as the first image. That gives the reader the legend in the first map, and also has the advantage of showing the southwest corner of the county, which isn't shown in the more detailed pictures because there are no exclaves there.

  Okay...I'll move the 1832 map to the gallery Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• I made the exclaves table sortable; I really like the result -- it's now possible to sort by figure number so you can match the rows with the maps more easily, for example. Doing that revealed what may be a couple of typos or inconsistencies: I see Alderton on the map but not the list, and Alstone on the list but not the map -- are they the same? Redmarley D'Abitot and Staunton are in the list but not the map; and Overbury, Great Washbourne, Sedgeberrow, Cutsdean, Broadway, Paxford and Aston Magna are on the map but not in the list. I'm guessing that Blockley on the list is the same as Blockley + Paxford + Aston Magna on the map, but if so I think it would be better to be consistent and put all three names in the list, since the reader is going to go back and forth between them to get oriented. Also, does Newbold-on-Stour refer to the piece in the Pershore colour just above Shipston-on-Stour? If so, can that name be moved up; and if not, what's the name of that piece? Finally, why is Honeybourne labelled?

  A lot of the places aren't parishes but settlements within a parish, Newbold-on-Stour is in the correct position. Honeybourne is in Worcestershire, right on the edge. Overbury, Broadway and Sedgeberrow were not part of the enclaves, but included to give context to the maps of the exclaves in relation to the main body of Worcestershire. I've removed Redmarley D'Abitot from the table as it doesn't form part of any exclave, I must of misinterpreted some research there. Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  That helps. A couple of things left over from my list above:

  • Alderton is on the map but not the list, and Alstone on the list but not the map -- are they the same? Checking Google maps it appears they are very close to each other; I think it would be better to refer to that area with a consistent name.
  • Staunton is on the list but not the map
  • Cutsdean is on the map as an exclave, but not in the list -- surely it should be?
  • Is there a name for the piece of Pershore just above Shipston-on-Stour? I can't tell if it's included in the list.

  -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)#

  List and map updated...Staunton wasn't part of an exclave, so its been taken out of the table. The place above Shipston-on-Stour within the 'Pershore' part of the exclave is Alderminster.Bellow558 (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• I see that you've marked on the maps many of the names of places that transferred, even though they weren't necessarily exclaves. I think this is the right approach; those three detailed maps can be the reference for much of the article. You don't show Upper Arley, though; it should be on 1A or 1B, right? And I also don't see Warley Woods or Ipsley marked anywhere.

  Those changes weren't part of the 1844/1931 enclave/exclave alterations, so they've not been marked on those maps. I could always mark them on other maps?

  I like the map you just added of Upper Arley; I don't think it's critical that the others be added or marked on the other maps, so I'm striking this. However, for an article like this, I think the more information is on the maps, the better, so maybe it's something to consider for after GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• On the map of Warley, you show the county borough's borders in blue, but what are the red borders? Civil parishes? Districts?

  Those were the former Rowley Regis, Oldbury and Smethwick areas, I'll alter the description to make that clearer Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  I figured out that it related to the conversion of those areas to the new Warley County Borough; I just meant what sort of entity were they? Civil parish, district, borough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  Rowley Regis and Oldbury were Urban Districts, Smethwick was a County Borough. Map description altered to emphasise this Bellow558 (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• "So when the Redcliffe-Maud report and the successor Local Government in England: Government Proposals for Reorganisation and Local Government Bill proposed a 'top tier' administrative unit within the conurbation, it would be defined by the Government as the next logical step" -- I don't quite follow this; can you clarify?

  The White Paper and Bill recommended and implemented through the Act a uniform two-tier system across the country, regardless of whether the administrative units were metropolitan or not. So in regards to the conurbation...most of these areas were never administrated by a county council, because of their county borough status, so a two tier system was inevitable after the 1966 changes. The main change...although its difficult to phrase it whilst being subjective is that the West Midlands County was an entirely new (and unpopular) entity that was carved out of the three existing counties of Worcs, Warwick and Staffs.Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry, I'm still not getting it. The previous paragraph says that the Redcliffe-Maud report recommended single-tier authorities for the metropolitan areas, so why would a two-tier system be inevitable? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  I see the contradiction, so the sentence has been removed Bellow558 (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Is the "<snip>" in the quote from John Gilbert just an indication that you've cut some text? If so, just use an ellipsis.

  Its a cut of some text because it wasn't relevant Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  OK -- I changed it to an ellipsis, which is how the manual of style recommends this be done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• "along with Amendment Numbers 294 and 295 which would have consented the Kinver Parish transfer from Seisdon in Staffordshire to the new combined Herefordshire & Worcestershire authority": can you clarify? Does this mean those two amendments would have allowed Kinver Parish to transfer, but it did not transfer because the amendments were defeated?

  Yes...This was a left over from Redcliffe-Maud; Seisdon was to be abolished and shared between a lot of the local authorities, Kinver was proposed to join what would be Hereford & Worcester, but because Stourbridge was to be added to the West Midlands, this change wouldn't really make much sense. This was secondary to the main discussions about the future of Herefordshire and Worcestershire as independent counties Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  OK -- I copyedited this slightly to make the meaning clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• The last part of the paragraph headed "Review of the West Midlands (City of Birmingham) Boundaries with Bromsgrove (Hereford & Worcester)" is not cited.

  I'll have a look at it Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The Local Government Boundary Commission recommended that Hereford & Worcester should be split into three unitary authorities centred on Herefordshire, North Worcestershire and South Worcestershire. However the final recommendation of the hybrid unitary and two-tier option was finally ratified by Law..." -- if the LGBC recommended three unitary authorities, who made the "final recommendation"?

  The final recommendation was by the LGBCE and then it was upto the legislators to ratify the decision or ask the LGBCE to go back and look at it again. Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  The legislators being Parliament? How about changing this to "However, Parliament chose the hybrid unitary and two-tier option instead, resulting in the abolition of the county of Hereford & Worcester"? That avoids using "recommendation" with two meanings, and makes it clear who had the final decision. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  Okay...no problem Bellow558 (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• "The Leominster and Malvern Hills districts crossed over the historic border, so a new Malvern Hills district was constituted which straddled the pre-April 1974 county boundary to the west, south-west and north-west" -- I don't follow this, sorry. The new district straddled the old boundary; the old boundary became the new boundary in 1998, right? So this district is now in two counties?

  No...Malvern Hills and Leominster districts under Hereford & Worcester straddled the pre-1974 border. When the 1998 reorganisation took place, the pre-1974 border between Herefordshire & Worcestershire was re-established. So the districts had to be reorganised to fall under one county only. Leominster District was abolished and its functions were carried out by the unitary Herefordshire authority. Because Leominster district also included part of Worcs, that area had to be added to one of Worcestershire's local authorities. So it was added to Malvern Hills, who also had an area change due to losing it's Herefordshire territories...which now came under the new Herefordshire authority. So 'Malvern Hills' district's area now straddled the new county boundary with Herefordshire in its entirety. Bellow558 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  OK, let me say that back to you in my own words to see if I have it right. There are two districts being discussed: Malvern Hills and Leominster. Both were districts of Hereford & Worcester; that's to say the districts were part of the 1974-1998 structure. When Herefordshire and Worcestershire came back into existence in 1998, both districts lay partly in each of the two newly recreated counties. To solve this problem, Leominster district was abolished. The part of Leominster district that was in Herefordshire was absorbed by a Herefordshire authority. The part of Leominster district that was in Worcestershire was added to Malvern Hills; the result was that Leominster district ceased to exist. Malvern Hills continued to exist; it is in Worcestershire and consists of the part of the 1974-1998 Malvern Hills district that was in Worcestershire, plus the part of 1974-1998 Leominster district that was in Worcestershire. Is that right? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  Yes...that's it Bellow558 (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  I've copyedited a little; I think that's clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• The last part of "Local Government Act 1972 legacy" is uncited.

  There is a reference at the end of the sub-section Bellow558 (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, should have noted this earlier: according to this tool, there are several dead links in the article -- can you check and replace them as needed?

  Dead links removed or new locations found and links updated. Reference number 35 works Bellow558 (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• I also realized just now that the source for the map data should be cited too. Are you deriving these maps from some downloadable geographic database, or taking existing maps and editing them? Whichever, we should really put a cite at the end of the caption for each map.

  Source data has been added to the maps Bellow558 (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That's everything I can see. I think the article is close to GA now; the above points are minor compared to the changes you've already made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

Everything above has been dealt with and the article is in great shape now. I've trimmed nearly all the "See also" links and "External links", per MOS:LAYOUT; if you think anything should be returned, let me know, but most of them were already linked in the article or in the referencs. I've also done some copyediting (again, feel free to revert if you don't like my changes) and have eliminated a few duplicate links. I expanded the lead substantially; it was a bit short for such a substantial article. I also removed most of your use of bold -- the house style here rarely uses bold type within articles to make items stand out, though if there's anything you think should be bold, let's talk about it.

• The article looks fantastic now...thanks for what you've done Bellow558 (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

One last read through revealed one final question:

• "However the Poor Law Amendment Act 1866 declared a divergence between the historic ecclesiastical parish and administrative functions within the locality, thus creating civil parishes. These administrative units formed the bottom-tier of local government within England and were established from 1865": how can civil parishes date from 1865 if the legislation establishing them was passed in 1866?

Once this is cleared up I will pass the article as a GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hiya Mike...Oh yes, I've just rectified that.

Thanks very much for working with me on this...its greatly appreciated and the article looks great! :) So the only thing to do now is renaming the article "Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries (1844 to present day)"? Bellow558 (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Last sentence of first paragraph is truncated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed; left over fragment of a draft. Thanks for spotting that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Section: Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844

…which redefined the boundaries for Members of Parliament - possibly more accurate to say:

… which redefined the boundaries for parliamentary [[United Kingdom constituencies|constituencies]]

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for spotting that Bellow558 (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing

I've made a few minor changes that improve the syntax and flow without altering any of the actual content. I've done this as a series of short diffs so that it is easier for you to revert if you don't appoprove of them. Not quite finished yet. (Don't worry - I won't be taking any credit at all, shared or otherwise, for the GA when it passes). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your assistance! Bellow558 (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Renaming the article

Bellow558, congratulations on getting this article to GA -- you've done a huge amount of work and the article is very impressive. I suggest we move the article to "Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries since 1844"; I think that's slightly more concise than "... boundaries (1844 - present)".

I've promoted the article to GA, but haven't placed it in the GA pages yet -- I'll wait to do that till we've agreed on the name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That is brilliant...thank you very much for all your work in assisting me getting the article to this level! :) Yes...I agree about the name change to "Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries since 1844" Bellow558 (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. It's been a pleasure working with you -- I look forward to seeing more of your articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No Problem Mike! Just one final question...In your opinion, how far is the article away from A-Class status? Just as a matter of interest. Thanks Bellow558 (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

A-class reviews are done by WikiProjects, so it would have to be from a WikiProject that has implemented an A-class review process, which most of them haven't. Only the most active projects, such as military history, have A-class reviews. The next step would be to get the article to featured status. I think there's more work to be done before you could get to that level -- it's not out of reach, but I don't think it's there yet.

What I'd suggest is that you work on a few more articles first -- see if you can get a few more to good article status; that process will give you a lot more experience and understanding of what it takes to improve an article. I would also suggest you review a couple of good article nominees, once you are confident you understand the criteria; reviewing an article is good practice for seeing what's wrong with your own articles. You could also read through featured article candidate reviews (at WP:FAC) and good article reviews by others (at WP:GAN) on topics that interest you; that'll give you a sense of what reviewers are looking for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that Mike...food for thought for the future! Thanks again for all your assistance! Bellow558 (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evolution of Worcestershire county boundaries since 1844. 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/20070930201127/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10101001 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10101001&c_id=10001043

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) 23:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)