Jump to content

Talk:Chew Valley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleChew Valley is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 31, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 21, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 27, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
December 30, 2020Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article


FA concerns

[edit]

I have significant concerns with whether or not this 2006 promotion meets the modern standards. There is uncited text throughout, as well as lead material not supported in the body, such as The River Chew was dammed in the 1950s to create Chew Valley Lake, which provides drinking water for the nearby city of Bristol and surrounding areas. The history section includes nothing much in the way of post-1900 history. There's extremely little information about the economy of the region. A couple of the source, particularly The Modern Antiquarian, look a bit questionable. Some information is potentially dated. I'm not convinced that this meets the current sourcing or comprehensiveness requirements. Hog Farm Bacon 04:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral ward

[edit]

Sorry @OGBC1992, I've reverted the addition of Category:Electoral wards in Bath and North East Somerset because as things currently stand it fails WP:CATV – it must be clear from verifiable information in the article why it's in the category. Currently the article contains no mentions of an electoral ward.

That could be fixed by adding reliably sourced information about the electoral ward to this article, but before we do, I think I we need to consider what the most suitable arrangement would be, considering that although the electoral ward is named after Chew Valley, it is not synonymous with the Chew Valley as defined in this article:

  • It's in B&NES, this article mentions 3 authority areas
  • Electoral wards are defined for the purpose of having balanced electorate sizes at elections, their boundaries often change, and while they often take the names of existing places, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England explicitly states that it is not trying to define places or their geographies

A few options for handling this come to mind:

  • We do try to include information about the electoral ward in this article -- perhaps in a 'governance' section -- but explain how the electoral ward called "Chew Valley" differs from the Chew Valley as currently covered in the article (see for example, Category:Wards of Bristol, where in many cases articles combine coverage of an electoral ward and a neighbourhood, and explain how they differ)
  • Split the electoral ward to its own article (see for example, Category:Wards of Dorset, where all the articles are dedicated solely to the electoral ward topic) -- but note that is has previously been established in WP:AfD discussions that electoral wards are not inherently notable, and somebody would need to do the work to establish that they are notable enough for an article
  • Start with fleshing out the details of the wards inside the List of electoral wards in Somerset (or a B&NES) one instead -- List of electoral wards in Bristol and List of electoral wards in Dorset provide some ideas for how you can use tables to do so. Then it would be simple to include a note in this article that there is a B&NES ward named after the valley (but not synonymous with it) pointing to that article for the details.

Does anyone have views, or want to go ahead and try implementing one of those solutions?

This has also highlighted to me that the article currently says Chew Valley is in North East Somerset and Hanham constituency, but if the article is right to say it straddles B&NES, North Som and Somerset, it must also be partly in other constituencies. That's another thing that having a governance section could clear up. Joe D (t) 20:11, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joe, I’d favour option 1 or 3 - I don’t think 2 is a goer. 1 is probably MVP (most viable product) in terms of amount of work etc. OGBC1992 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]