The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a three-metre-tall (10 ft) statue of a five-toed cockerel(pictured) in Dorking is a frequent target of yarn bombers?
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
OpenStreetMap held a mapping party in this area on 28-29 October 2006 to make a creative commons licensed map that may be used in Wikipedia articles.
What happened to the information on dorking's communter town status? and the disaffected youth?
I have lived in dorking all my life, and have studied sociology in the area, so i dont see why someone has deleted my info, and i would like some kind of justification for this deletion.
The website stuff dorking, is non-notable and non-credible. On further investigation it is a small forum frequented by 5-10 people who posted their link here as a form of advertising. Now as this is not a credible dorking website I am going to remove it again.
Agreed, just looks like an advert and should be removed. --86.11.112.240 16:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I surfed on in to this page as part of my musical duties on Wikipedia to add the Emma Holland link and I was amazed to see that the second most boring town in West Surrey has such an elaborately gushing page. A1octopus 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to take issue with the statement:
'With its many shops Dorking is a booming town'. It clearly is not. The shop turnover is immense and there has not been a single time in its history that all the plots in St. Martins' Walk has been filled. This looks like a piece of advertising, not an encyclopaedic entry. If someone can find justification for this, maybe from the Dorking Chamber of Commerce, then it should be cited as a reference, otherwise it should be deleted.
Robruss24 13:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This document (about the status of Crawley as a retail destination) has a bit of info about Dorking as a retail destination. According to the "UK Shopping venue Rankings 2005", it is apparently in 445th place. Also, it is not considered to be either a Primary Regional Centre (such as Brighton or Crawley) or a Secondary Regional Centre (such as Haywards Heath or Horsham). So statistically, it is a relatively small player in the local retail market. Hassocks5489 14:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I slightly altered the wording in the modern era section.Robruss24 15:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The leisure section states that "Dorking Halls is a cinema, theatre, leisure centre and swimming pool complex." But as far as I can work out, this is not true. You can't buy a leisure centre ticket or a swimming ticket in Dorking Halls. Also, you can't buy a cinema ticket or a theatre ticket in the leisure centre.
If no one has any solid evidence that my hunch is incorrent, please state it. If not, do I have permission to correct this section of the article? Pappy uk (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is just a semantics problem, Dorking Halls is adjacent to Dorking Leisure Centre, this section should be re-written to reflect that fact. PorgeHR (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This would benefit from a rewrite in a more neutral tone, preferably with citations for some of the comments. I'll try to do something in the next couple of days or so.
I'll do the Dorking Deepdene and Dorking West station entries as well - that was what I was originally concerned with ...! --Hassocks5489 12:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (Occasional Dorking visitor)[reply]
I reverted numerous edits by this user Pappy uk because I was not sure of the veracity of the edits. The image of the cockerel was not really suitable as it had people in it. It was not clear where it was. The music for people under 18 no longer occurs and there was no substantiation. SuzanneKn 17:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what was wrong with some of the edits. He/she separated Dorking Halls from the Swimming Centre (two separate buildings), and removed two unreferenced "famous people" who may or may not be Dorking people but I've never heard of them. I quite liked the Cockerel picture: it is a figure of ridicule in the town and the caption ("a typical night out") is quite accurate. The photograph was linked from Facebook, where there is a group for people who have climbed the statue. BeerMatt 06:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, BeerMatt. I'm fairly sure the new Swimming Center is separate from Dorking Halls. (You can't buy a ticket to a film in the Swimming Center, and you can't pay to go swimming in Dorking Halls...If yu get my drift.)
As for the picture of the people on the Dorking Cockerel, I thought that was very amusing, and completely correct. There's always drunk teenagers 'riding' it...
So even though it's not very appropriate, i think it's ideal to display some of our our youths actions. 86.3.124.119 (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Nicholas Cowls and Sir Edward Michael Blunt[edit]
Who are these people, and why do they not appear anywhere else but here? They've been deleted and reinstated plenty of times, but what's the truth here? Is there any evidence that these people even existed? BeerMatt (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<-- Josh is headboy of ashcombe school -.-
(taken out of my post) So that explains it then. Can we leave them out once and for all now? BeerMatt (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted again. If there's any reason why these people should be included, please post some evidence. BeerMatt (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up this considerably as per the needs of the cleanup tag. I've checked, verified and amended data providing references. Box Hill, Coldharbour etc are not the town of Dorking so they have been removed. As for verifying Lord Nelson's visit I'm afraid I couldn't. Hope my work is OK. The old list is below if anyone has any other views. SuzanneKn 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several other actors live here now including John Watson and Rick Partridge, both of whom have appeared in The Bill.
Ralph Vaughan Williams, 1872–1958, spent most of his childhood in Leith Hill Place, near Coldharbour and, from 1929 to 1953, off the Westcott Road in Dorking.
Henry Hope and his nephew Thomas Hope spent summers at Deepdene in the beginning of the 19th century.
Thomas Cubitt was born and lived in the town, and later built up large areas of London from the early 19th Century. His Politician son George also had connections with the town, including building the St Barnabas church at Ranmore Common.
Daniel Defoe, 1661-1731, probably attended a boarding-school in Pixham Lane, and later mentioned Dorking in his Tour through the Whole Island of Great Britain.
Benjamin Disraeli wrote his novel Coningsby while staying in Deepdene House (now demolished) on the outskirts of the town.
Marian Hemar, famous Polish poet is buried at the local cemetery.
Lord Nelson is reputed to have spent his last night before boarding ship for the Battle of Trafalgar at the Burford Bridge Hotel.
Robert Kilroy Silk, famous politician and chat show host is rumoured to have a country retreat in the Abinger area.
Jane Austen set a significant passage from the novel Emma at Box Hill, northeast of the town.
George Meredith lived in Box Hill and died at his home there in 1909.
"The Battle of Dorking" a fictional short-story written by Lt. Col. Sir George Tomkyns Chesney in 1871 was set in the town. Describing a fictional invasion and conquest of Britain, it triggered an explosion of what came to be known as invasion literature.
John Logie Baird lived in the Swiss Cottage on Dorking's Box Hill in the early 1930s.
Oliver Reed lived at Broome Hall, close to the nearby villages of Coldharbour and Ockley, and latterly at Pinkhurst Farm in Oakwoodhill, with his last wife Josephine Burge.The comedian Jim Davidson subsequently bought the property, and has had great difficulty in selling it since his move to Dubai in 2006.
Emma Holland was raised in the town, although went to some lengths in a bid to leave it.
Mollie Sugden lives in Ockley, 7 miles to the south of Dorking.
Peter André and Jordan live in Ockley, 7 miles to the south of Dorking.
Tony Allen, American football coach, was born in Dorking.
Marvin Allen, American football player, was born in Dorking.
Richard Haughton, Saracens and England Saxons Winger and Full Back was born in Dorking and played for them at mini level.
I'll find references for Tony Allen and Arthur Ransom. I "know" that TA was born here, and AR lives here, but I'll see what I can find. I've read conflicting information about Tony Allen's son Marvin (either Croydon, Dorking or London), and I'm happy to leave that out. Agree with your other edits - great stuff. BeerMatt 19:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Large Houses
Just to clarify, Denbies House is not now a winery. Denbies House is on top of Ranmore, about 1 mile away frm teh newl-built winery. It is owned by the owner of the vinyard Robruss24 (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that, Denbies house was demolished at the turn of the century, a smaller house, lived in by owner of Denbies Winery, has since been built on the site. PorgeHR (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2010
Different house and already has own article, Deepdene (garden). It is mentioned under Henry Hope in Famous residents and literary connections section. Cjc13 (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen your confusion. I just wanted to write on here to entrench the point that a lead is not to be dumbed-down to suburb levels. I am sure readers will feel a little bit more clear about what all these estates are now! I hadn't even seen your comments, but would definitely not be surprised in the slightest for an outsider to the county to confuse any of a number of estates dotted about Dorking. Dorking has many extraordinary aspects to such a large semi-rural town, like Kendal, whether historically, topographically or socio-economically. - Adam37Talk 14:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cjc13 - rather belated, but I think it is the same house?KJP1 (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore me, I see the other editor was suggesting it was Denbies House. KJP1 (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Denbies nor Deepdene were the manor house. In medieval times, Deepdene was a woodland and the first significant residence was built there in around 1650. Denbies was a farm until 1734. The Dorking manor house was on the site of the present St Martin's Walk (near the church, north of the High Street). It would appear that the Warennes (the Earls of Surrey) were rarely in residence (they preferred Reigate) and the family (and their descendants) became even less interested in living in Dorking as they were 'promoted' first to the Earldom of Arundel and then the Dukedom of Norfolk. I think the general consensus is that the Dorking manor house was demolished at the start of the Tudor period, if not before. Mertbiol (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Dorking. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
I have just modified 2 external links on Dorking. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
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.
The bandstand, which as I understood it, was an integral part of the memorial is unusual as having been demolished. It would be useful if sources for its history could be found; particularly its active use and then when it went out of use and when removed. SovalValtos (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SovalVatos. I have added some information on the bandstand to the relevant section. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent Mertbiol. The Jackson source 'Dorking: a Surrey market town through twenty centuries' was what I do not have in my library. Your edit helps explain the associated cutting back of the hillside, and removing buildings for traffic shown on maps. Thank you.SovalValtos (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the Geology section could do with some re-wording so as not to veer towards too broadly construing Dorking geology. I don't think it needs total removal. The cross-section is useful but could be improved by having more strata labelled. A similar cross-section in larger scale showing detail of the caves, Pipp Brook stream alluvium, brick-clay, etc might also help, though perhaps the brick works was too far out?SovalValtos (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments after significant improvements Jan 2021[edit]
From 15 Nov 2020 User:Mertbiol has made impressive improvements to this article and has asked for comments [1].
A project [2] suggests a different order for sections which may or may not be an improvement.
The static image in the infobox is not of great quality but I like the vantage point. A lot in commons to explore. I am not keen on large montages.
The 'Dorking in wartime' section could be expanded to include earlier wars such as the Civil War, or if not re-titled 'Dorking in the world wars'
Hi @SovalValtos:. Thanks for your early comments. Some preliminary responses:
Section order - I presume your primary concern is that the Geography section precedes the History section in the current version of the article, whereas the guidance suggests that they should be the other way round. My personal view is that some prior knowledge of the location, topography and geology of any settlement is necessary to understand its history (at least up to medieval times, if not beyond).
So in the case of Dorking, I think it's important to say that the town is at the intersection of north-south and east-west valleys, that there is a source of drinking water (the Pipp Brook) and that sandstone and chalk can be quarried in the centre, before explaining how the town developed. (How can you discuss watermills without first mentioning the river? How can you discuss turnpikes and railways without knowing about the proximity of London and other nearby towns?) I also think that to understand the history section, a reader needs to have the basic Y-shaped town plan in their head - otherwise talking about locations of churches, markets etc makes no sense.
I would hope that we could come to a consensus on this talk page, to demonstrate (if necessary) to a reviewer that a deviation from the official guidance is appropriate in this case. (I would note that Geography precedes History in the Skegness article (which is rated FA) - so the 'rules' are not rigidly enforced.) Most importantly, if a reader feels that they don't want to read the Geography section first, they can very easily skip straight to the History section by clicking on the relevant link in the ToC.
Photo - Yes, I agree that the current photograph could be improved. Like you, I think the view (which is from Ranmore Common, looking SE) is a good one. A view from the Nower is another possibility. I'm personally not a great fan of the view from Box Hill, in which the Pixham sewage works and the London Road petrol station are a little too prominent for my liking...
Wartime - Yes, I'd be happy to change the title of this section as you suggest.
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And just to add, the WikiProject:Cities guidance says that the order of the History and Geography sections can be swapped 'if desired' - see Note 2. Mertbiol (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To get an idea of the possibilities for an image taken from near the Nower see [3] or [4] by hard working photographer Ian Capper. It is easier to get the lighting right from there rather than Ranmore but both give some idea of West Street and the Vale of Holmesdale. SovalValtos (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @SovalValtos:, I have uploaded both of these photos to Commons here and here. Ian Capper certainly is a very hard working photographer and his contributions have been very useful on several articles that I have worked on. It has been several years since I last went up on the Nower - I will have to go again after lockdown ends! Mertbiol (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mertbiol for uploading to commons. It would have taken me ages to work out how; I was not even sure that adding the links here was allowed. I will try changing the infobox image to see reactions. I hope the one selected could be improved in due course, even if difficult without having to resort to a copter. The West street Pipp Brook line could be clearer and a higher angle could give a better photo ratio than cropping the bottom of this. A train steaming east would give definition to the Reading line.SovalValtos (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @SovalValtos:. I have uploaded a cropped version of the view from the The Nower, which shows the town more clearly and fills the infobox more successfully. I've also streamlined the caption a little, so it's a little more 'punchy'. I hope you like the new version.
I have also been able to borrow a book on the Leith Hill Musical Festival from a musically inclined neighbour, so have streamlined this section and have added better references.
I am not sure about the U3A - do they have their own permanent building/offices in Dorking? (If they do, then I think we should mention them, but if not, we may fall foul of notability issues.) Is the Dorking group particularly well supported or prominent? I'm not aware of other town articles mentioning local U3A groups.
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be more on Picture Palaces or Cinemas? SovalValtos (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2021
Hi @SovalValtos: I have added a note on cinemas to the Dorking Halls section. Mertbiol (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good Mertbiol I would not have thought about doing it as a note.
Another thing that is not Dorking specific but I find infuriating is that when clicking on a map in the infobox with a location dot to see an enlargement is the larger map no longer has the location dot.SovalValtos (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is 'Other nearby attractions' somewhat off topic?SovalValtos (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the Utilities section the gasworks is said to have been built in 1834 with coal being supplied from Dorking West station, but that was not opened until 1849.SovalValtos (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gas: Well spotted! Croker 1999 says (p78) "The Dorking Gas Light Company, for example, built its works in 1834 to supply public lighting, coal being delivered from Dorking Town station by horse and cart" with no consideration as to what happened before 1849. Tarplee] says (p270) "[Dorking Gas Company] had a small site near where Dorking Town station was established in 1949" so it seems that the gasworks were not relocated when the railway was opened. I will add a short qualifier to the section - see what you think.
Nearby attractions: I agree that Box Hill, Leith Hill and Polesden Lacey are all 'out of scope'. My intention by including a single sentence, was to ward off anyone who might be tempted to add them in (and write about them at considerable length), thereby taking the article off topic. But they are already mentioned earlier on, so perhaps there is no justification for them in the 'Attractions' section.
Thanks and best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am amused by the pre-emptive strike justification for inclusion of 'Nearby attractions'. I leave it for others to decide.SovalValtos (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Tarplee source seems to have its own problems "[Dorking Gas Company] had a small site near where Dorking Town station was established in 1949" Just a typo 1949 for 1849 or not working to Wikipedia standards?SovalValtos (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, that was my typo. The Tarplee source correctly says 1849! Mertbiol (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see SovalValtos has already re-rated the article as B. Just to say I thoroughly agree with that assessment. Having gone through the article I can only find a couple of nit-picks.
There seems to be a convention in settlement articles that pub and inn names are italicised and there are a few duplicate wikilinks that I will go back through and sort out.
In the transport section should mention be made of the easy access to both Heathrow and Gatwick?
Otherwise a good piece of work. NB I agree with putting the geography section ahead of history; after all, the geography came first! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Murgatroyd49: for looking through the article so promptly.
Pub names in italics. There was a discussion here at the end of December. It didn't really reach a consensus (nothing on that talk page ever does), but the general tenor of the conversation was that there was no need to italicise.
Easy access to Heathrow and Gatwick. I think the problem comes with the use of the word 'easy' and whether this is encyclopaedic. It's certainly possible to travel to both airports by road, but that is true of anywhere on the GB mainland. There is a direct train link to Gatwick (already stated in the Rail section), but I think all public transport routes to Heathrow require a change of mode (e.g. train to bus at Woking or Feltham).
Please do go through and remove duplicate links - I have done my best to clean them up, but they are very easy to miss!
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have found all the duplicate links, tempting fate! I think there is possibly an over-use of parentheses where commas would serve but that is my pet prejudice. The next step would be to submit the article for GA status, not sure how you go about that. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Murgatroyd49: that's great! I have just cleaned up a few more instances of overlinking. (We are allowed to overlink in picture captions, so I have added in a link to Dorking chicken in the 'Commerce and industry' section.) Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it worth starting a new Talk section now. I do not have the skill for GA assessment.SovalValtos (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked at Wikipedia:Good articles which details the process. Basically the main editor, in this case Mertbiol, can nominate the article for assessment, then an independent editor will look at it and make appropriate recommendations. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both! I have asked @KJP1: for their advice as to whether this article is ready for WP:GAN or if it would benefit from a formal peer review first.
I think there are a few 'nice to haves' (which would not be required for GA status) but which would enhance the article, including decent photos of the caves and of the refurbished Meadowbank stadium, but I cannot find anything with the right license that we could use.
Roll on the end of lockdown, will be a good excuse to visit the town with my camera. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Murgatroyd49. Lockdown is one of my reasons for hesitating about submitting the article for GAN, because under the current circumstances, I don't have ready access to all of the books referenced. So if a reviewer asks for something to be checked or expanded, it may not be possible to provide a timely response. (Generally editors are given a week to address comments.) There is a book on St Paul's Primary School in the Surrey History Centre in Woking, which I would like to use to beef up the 'Education' section, but again I can't get access to it at the moment. Mertbiol (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I realise my comment above on 'a map in the infobox with a location dot' is not specific to this article but whilst class editors are scrutinising maybe one knows if the problem is fixable?SovalValtos (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts, as requested. First, it is a grand article. Well-written, very well-researched, well-illustrated, very informative. Many congratulations, you’ve done the town, and our readers, good service. As to GA or PR, for me it depends on whether you want to take it beyond GA. In my, quick, assessment, it is easily a GA as it stands (though I haven’t checked sourcing/gone through the GA criteria). So, if GA was as far as you wanted to go, I would get it a GA logo. But if you want to take it to FA, and in my view you should, then I would go for PR. The great advantage of PR is that you get a range of views, rather than the one you normally get at GA. In my own, limited, experience that is a more helpful preparation for FA. I’m not sure any of the FAs I’ve collaborated on went through GA first. I should add a caveat - PR can be slow, and sometimes you won’t get any bites. Though that can also be true of both GA and FA.
One immediate thought from me - is it a bit overlong? It is the same size as Manchester, and with all due deference to Dorking, I think Manchester’s had a bit more going on! I have a weakness for long articles, but we should remember summary style. A few specifics/examples:
you have a long section on Deepdene, which has its own article - which should be linked? Then you have a Deepdene Residents section, where Sir William Beresford makes his second Famous Residents appearance. I wonder if these could be slimmed?
some of the other Tourist attraction/Parks/Notable buildings sub-section could probably be trimmed a bit. Incidentally, I’d put Pippbrook House as Gothic Revival rather than Gothic;
the Sports section is very detailed, e.g. Cycling. The first two races go through Dorking, and a lot of other places!, but are they really “Dorking” races?
some sections have quite a lot of single-sentence paragraphs, e.g. Primary schools. With a bit of judicious cutting, that could perhaps become a single para.?
Healthcare - I’m always nervous of “six” dental practices and “four” opticians. Not only do such specifics shade into a gazetteer approach, they date so easily;
Television - one, not very significant, TV series was shot in the town. Is that of any more than marginal importance in Dorking’s 1000-year history. Maybe it is, as it is the only one. I admit, I loathe “Media appearances” sections in building articles and blitz unsourced ones on sight!
the Lead - when you’re ready to take it forward, I’d have a re-read of the lead. For me, it has a few less important details, the location of the council HQ, the chicken, but perhaps doesn’t quite summarise the whole article, drawing out the key matters of importance. In this regard, I wonder whether Nairn & Pevsner is a little underused? Nairn notes the townscape, as you do, but also shows his trademark forthrightness, twice! “Dorking has a high street with an almost perfect shape but hardly an individual building worth a glance”; (p=21) “Absurdly little architecture for a Home Counties town”. (p=194) That he thinks the absence of notable architecture is worth mentioning, twice, may be worth reflecting in the article. He also calls Pippbrook, “very ugly”! (p=196)
If you do go down the PR route, ping me and I will contribute. And, as I say, it’s a cracker of an article! All best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks KJP1 - sorry I have just posted on your talk page without checking here first - my apologies. Thanks very much for your feedback.
I should flag the use of a self-published source in the Emergency services and justice section. The reference "Bartlett, Robert (2020). Policing Rural Surrey: From the Distant Past to the First World War. Robert Bartlett." is a book written by the author and published on his own own website. My feeling is that the writer is sufficiently expert for this reference to stand, but it would be good to know your view. Would a source like this be a problem for WP:GAN, or would it depend on the reviewer do you think? (I should make it clear that I am not Robert Bartlett!!)
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no apology necessary. Hope the comments are of some use. Look forward to commenting if you go the PR route. Now Bartlett. I fear he may pose a problem. For me it’s fine, and reflects that the more “local” a subject, the more limited a range of sources will be available. But some editors, quite fairly, take a stricter interpretation of Reliable Sources than I do. You will see a debate here, [5] on this very issue which sadly sank an FAC. To be honest, unless it’s essential, I’d probably lose it. Or be prepared to fight for it! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @KJP1: Thanks very much for your prompt response. I'll digest your feedback this afternoon, with an aim to make some changes to the article tomorrow.
I think the best thing to do now, is to put the article to GAN and (assuming it gets through), then to 'park' it until the end of lockdown when I can get access to libraries again. (I am sure that the statements supported by the Bartlett reference can be sourced from elsewhere, but unfortunately the archive of the local newspaper is not online, so this means consulting the archives in the Surrey History Centre.)
Thanks again for your feedback and maybe in late spring I can take up your offer of input into a Peer Review!
Hi @SovalValtos:@Murgatroyd49: and @KJP1: Thank you for your feedback. I have done my best to address your comments and I think the article is much improved as a result of your input. I have just submitted a WP:GAN, so fingers crossed! Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave comments within a couple of days. This looks like an interesting read. ♦ jaguar 16:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
"held at least weekly since early Medieval times" - not sure if medieval should be capitalised here
The lead summarises the article well, so no issues here
Geography
"The basic plan of the town centre has not changed since Medieval times" - capital 'm' here again
"The National Trust owns several properties in the area, including Box Hill" - link Box Hill, Surrey. Also I'm not sure if 'properties' would best describe a hill
"The Weald (the area covering modern-day south Surrey..." - link Weald
"the Hythe Beds take the form of iron-rich" - 'beds' was not capitalised in the previous mention, which is the proper use?
History and development
The third paragraph in the Governance subsection is too short and chops the flow of the prose. I would recommend merging it with the fourth paragraph
"The antiquarian, John Aubrey," the comma after antiquarian is unnecessary
Public services
'Services' doesn't need to be capitalised in the heading
"In 1735, a pump (powered by the stream) was installed" - this could be removed and condensed to just waterpump
"lift water from a spring (on the site of Archway Place)" - these brackets are unnecessary
"As of 2020, the town has two GP practices (on Reigate Road and South Street)" - brackets also not needed here
Sport
"Walker's contribution to motorsport and to Dorking was celebrated in October 2018 (the centenary of his birth)" - how about Walker's contribution to motorsport and to Dorking was celebrated on the centenary of his birth in October 2018
Notable buildings
"The statue of Thomas Cubitt (the architect and master builder) was installed in 1995" - The statue of architect and master builder Thomas Cubitt was installed in 1995
Apologies for the delay in getting to this as I've been held up by studies. There is much to commend in this article - it is well-written, comprehensive and has an extensive and well-formatted bibliography. The prose is overall engaging and flows well. I have noted a couple of choppy sentences which could easily be tweaked. Once all the above points are addressed I'll be happy to promote this. ♦ jaguar 15:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jaguar:, thanks very much for reviewing the article so thoroughly. I appreciate that this was a relatively long one to read through. I have addressed all your concerns.
Services -> services pump (powered by the stream) -> pump Round brackets removed x2
Sport
Y
Rephrased as requested.
Notable buildings and landmarks
Y
Rephrased as requested.
Please let me know if you have additional concerns. Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mertbiol. It was a pleasure to review! With those out of the way I'll be happy to promote this now. Very good work with this one! ♦ jaguar 19:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome!! Thanks @Jaguar: for your very thorough review. Thanks also to @SovalValtos:, @Murgatroyd49: and @KJP1: for their support, encouragement and proofreading. I’m delighted that the most important town in Surrey is the first in the county to have a GA Wikipedia article! Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Valereee (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... that Dorking, England was the home town of six MayflowerPilgrims, including Williams Mullins and his daughter Priscilla Alden? Source 1: "Dorking was home to SIX Mayflower pilgrims" Mayflower 400 Source 2: "William Mullins was born about 1572 to John and Joan (Bridger) Mullins of Dorking, Surrey, England... William brought his wife Alice and children Priscilla and Joseph on the Mayflower..." Mayflower History: William Mullins Source 3: "Priscilla Mullins was born probably near Guildford or Dorking, co. Surrey, England, to William Mullins. She came on the Mayflower to Plymouth in 1620 with her father, brother Joseph, and mother or step-mother Alice. Her entire family, herself excepted, died the first winter. She was shortly thereafter, in 1622 or 1623, married to John Alden, the Mayflower's cooper, who had decided to remain at Plymouth rather than return to England with the ship." Mayflower History: Priscilla Mullins
ALT1:... that six MayflowerPilgrims were originally from Dorking, England, including Williams Mullins and his daughter Priscilla Alden? Source 1: "Dorking was home to SIX Mayflower pilgrims" Mayflower 400 Source 2: "William Mullins was born about 1572 to John and Joan (Bridger) Mullins of Dorking, Surrey, England... William brought his wife Alice and children Priscilla and Joseph on the Mayflower..." Mayflower History: William Mullins Source 3: "Priscilla Mullins was born probably near Guildford or Dorking, co. Surrey, England, to William Mullins. She came on the Mayflower to Plymouth in 1620 with her father, brother Joseph, and mother or step-mother Alice. Her entire family, herself excepted, died the first winter. She was shortly thereafter, in 1622 or 1623, married to John Alden, the Mayflower's cooper, who had decided to remain at Plymouth rather than return to England with the ship." Mayflower History: Priscilla Mullins
ALT2:... that Williams Mullins' house in Dorking is the only surviving English home of a MayflowerPilgrim? Source 1: "William Mullins’ house on West Street, near to Dorking Museum, is the only surviving home of a Pilgrim Father. This impressive building dates from between 1568 and 1610. Mullins bought it with a mortgage in 1612, and then sold it in 1619." Dorking Museum: William Mullins Source 2: "The Mullins’ house on West Street, near to Dorking Museum, is thought to be the only surviving home of a Pilgrim Father. This impressive building dates from between 1568 and 1610." Mayflower 400
Improved to Good Article status by Mertbiol (talk). Self-nominated at 09:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
alt4 ... that a museum dedicated to the history of Dorking was established in 1976? Cbl62 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Dorking CockerelThe Dorking Cockerel
alt5 ... that Dorking, once the target of Nazi incendiary bombs, has more recently been the target of yarn bombing directed at its large metal cockerel (pictured)? Cbl62 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will review this. I am familiar with the town ... I may have even taken a couple of the photos used in the article ;) Bear with me, as the review will take a little while. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 00:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article was promoted to GA status on 12th February.
This is a very long and detailed article which covers everything I would expect from an article on a British town. I can also confirm that nothing significant in Dorking's history has been missed.
No issues with neutrality or writing style.
Substantial bibliography with plenty of good-quality reliable sources, mostly books. I am familiar with several of the books and can vouch for their suitability.
I have spot-checked a number of the online sources. No issues noted with regard to copyvio/close paraphrasing, incorrect interpretation of sources or similar.
Online sources have been proactively archived – excellent!
Images ... both suggested images on this nomination were taken from geograph.org.uk and therefore are suitably licensed. Both are used in the article, and look very good at the thumbnail size.
Hooks ... I will divide the seven suggested hooks into three categories.
Original/ALT1/ALT2: all concerned with the Pilgrims. The original and ALT1 are fully supported in the article. ALT2 is mentioned only in a footnote: ideally this fact should be mentioned in the article itself (I think it is significant enough to warrant a mention in the body of the article, although I'm not sure where it would fit). If a Pilgrims-related hook is chosen by the promoter, ALT1 would be my preference.
ALT3/ALT4: unfortunately these hooks are not interesting enough. Very many British towns and villages were first mentioned in the Domesday Book, and many towns and villages have their own local history museum.
ALT5/ALT6/ALT7: the Dorking Cockerel is the best angle for a hook, in my view. As a unique breed commemorated in that wonderful statue on the roundabout, it is interesting enough; but the yarn-bombing aspect (which I wasn't aware of) makes for a particulary compelling hook. The sources are from various local newspapers which are fine to use as sources. The three hooks are quite similar, but the best and most concise is ALT7. I would suggest delinking cockerel, though, to put the focus on Dorking as the target article.
This article is good to go and ideally should be showcased in the (pictured) slot. I strongly recommend ALT7ALT7a or ALT7b and the Cockerel picture. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 02:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the 10-foot cockerel makes for a strong hook. However, I would suggest further modifying alt7 to delink yarn bombing as that concept is so intriguing that it may well draw most of the views away from Dorking. Cbl62 (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, alts 5 and 6 were inspired by my inner Beavis and Butt-Head, and while it made me chuckle, I agree the 10-foot cock makes for a better hook. Cbl62 (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering whether "10-ft tall" would be better than "10-ft high" to describe the size of the cockerel statue? I will leave this for others with more experience to decide. (This is my first DYK.) Mertbiol (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The photo has been updated in the article and I have therefore replaced the photo used here.Mertbiol (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALT7a ... that the 10 ft-high statue (pictured) of a five-toed cockerel in Dorking, England is a frequent target of yarn bombers?
ALT7b ... that the 10 ft-tall statue (pictured) of a five-toed cockerel in Dorking, England is a frequent target of yarn bombers?
Propose using this hook with Dorking cockerel picture.@Hassocks5489: Can you give a green tick for this ALT7a that uses the chicken with ribbon? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go with ALT7a or ALT7b (I would tend to prefer ALT7b, i.e. "10 ft-tall"). Licensing of new photo has been checked and is fine. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Promoter - Could this be put into the #1 slot position with The Dorking Cockerel picture (with the medal). Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have added an alternative photo of the sculpture - up to the promoter to decide which is better at 150px size. Mertbiol (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Encyclopædius:Doug Coldwell has suggested that I ask for your input on which of the two images of the Cockerel would work best for DYK. Could you advise please? (I have enhanced the colour of both, so it might be worth looking at the earlier versions on Commons, to see if you prefer those.) If you think the second one would be better, then I have to switch the two around in the article. Thanks Mertbiol (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer the first image, with the dark background. I don't know what a yarn bomber is, so would be hooked by the pic but not the hook. That will be just me ;) - If we need "England" (which I doubt), we need a comma afterwards. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer the first image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Me, too. I prefer the first image. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALT7c ... that the 10 ft-tall statue (pictured) of a five-toed cockerel in Dorking is a frequent target of yarn bombers?
ALT7C (without "England") is also good to go, and I also prefer the first image because of the greater contrast against the background. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking ahead to possible Featured Article status, I thought it might be useful to make a list of photos which it would be good to add to the article in preparation. This isn’t a 'list of demands', but if anyone local or visiting is out in the town with a camera (weather and pandemic permitting) and can take pictures of any of the below, that would be great. Likewise if anyone has a stash of Dorking photos that the’ve been meaning to put online, then perhaps this might be prompt to upload them to Wikimedia Commons (so that they can be used in this article). If you can think of other photos that might be useful to include, then please also note them down below. I will do my best to take photos of everything once lockdown ends, but my photography skills are sadly somewhat lacking.
Dorking from The Nower (the main photo in the infobox): Would be great to have an updated version of this picture, especially now that Transport House (the former office block next to Dorking Deepdene station) has been clad to make it blend into the townscape.
South Street from above the War Memorial: In the History section, there are two stacked photos of South Street (one from 1959 and the other from 2009). It would be great to replace the 2009 image with one from 2021.
Dorking Caves Would be great to have a couple of photos from the Caves. There are some great photos on the Dorking Museum website, but unfortunately they are copyright and can't be put on Wikimedia Commons.
Dorking in the World Wars Would be great to have a photo of soldiers on patrol in the town or training in the surrounding area.
Utilities Does anyone have any photos of the gasworks, gasometer or power station hiding in an old photo album?
Hospital Would be good to have a photo of the hospital.
Schools A few photos of the school buildings of The Ashcombe School and The Priory School would be great.
Meadowbank Football Ground Does anyone have a photo of Meadowbank Stadium taken since its refurbishment?
Cycling Would anyone be willing to share a photo of the Olympic cycling races passing through the town. (Preferably showing the British team!)
Please do add your suggestions if you can think of anything I've missed. It would be fantastic to show off the town with some additional high quality photos! If you'd like any help to upload pictures to Wikimedia Commons, please drop a note down below and I'll guide you through the steps. Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mertbiol I went through the images on commons to see if there were useful ones that had been missed. A dreary task given the quality of many.
I realise images must be used to illustrate, but text can be added. Pump corner Pump Corner - geograph.org.uk - 1048048 perhaps from a wider/different angle might be useful. An important focus with four/five roads with the easily overlooked North Street and Rosehill.
Where was the terminus for the mail coach? Was it the White Horse? If so an image might help.
The museum seems to have lots of useful images which are their copyright. For the older ones however the copyright may only be for the scan rather than the original so there is a chance for a new scan to be done and uploaded. Utilities?
The raised pavement is unusual. Dorking High Street in July 2009 3
Thanks @SovalValtos: Thanks for going through the photos on Commons. As you say, the quality is quite variable.
I think a picture of the High Street, particularly as it curves down towards Pump Corner, would be good. The best time is probably early on a Sunday morning in June, when the light is good from the east and there's less traffic and fewer pedestrians. There is a quote we could use from Nairn and Pevsner, which says "[The High Street] is a beautiful shape as townscape, serpentine and irregular – but not formless – with the south side higher than the north..."
Taking a picture of Pump Corner itself is quite challenging, because it's easy to lose the pump in the general clutter of street signs.
The stagecoaches tended to terminate at the Red Lion, which was demolished in the interwar period (I think) and has been replaced by the building that contains Boots Opticians.
Challenges are there to be met Mertbiol. I think pump corner could be covered from near the eastern side corner of the junction of North Street to the High Street using either a special wide angle lens or by stitching a panorama. A panorama might involve the use of a tripod in the road! Pump photo to be looking generally west as the important 'Nairn and Pevsner serpentine and irregular' view should be covered by another image from further east. I am glad they noted it. Don't try to do too much for one subject in an image. Agreed time for traffic/pedestrians/lighting/foliage important. It is only now that I realise Rosehill is not part of the junction and could not be included.SovalValtos (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the Red Lion was more prominent than the White Horse is there any more that should be added about it?SovalValtos (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @SovalValtos: I will check my books for information of the Red Lion, but I think there is only limited coverage and there is not much more that could be usefully said in the article. Mertbiol (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a random selection of pics to upload, mostly from 2013 if I remember rightly. I don't think there's anything from the list above, but I will try to do them tonight anyway. @Mertbiol: I think you said you were working on Leatherhead next, so I will do those at the same time (they're in the same folder!). Cheers, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done; 55 in total (everything with today's date), although not all are Dorking/Leatherhead. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is brilliant User:Hassocks5489. The link to your uploads is particularly useful as it will save having to go through the dross on commons to find your pearls. I have not found a way to thank people for uploads on commons, so thank you here. You may forgive me for making an observation about perspective, particularly where architecture is involved. Hold the camera level and if necessary use a shorter focal length and crop later. On level ground I would centre the frame on a doorway at head height and shorten the focal length to take in the roof. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Hassocks5489: I will have a good look through your photos. I'm taking a bit of a wikibreak at the moment, as things are very busy at work. I have added some material to the Leatherhead article, but am an unlikely to be able to make further progress until after Easter and perhaps not until early May. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William Fawke's 1995 Statue of Thomas Cubitt[edit]
I made my way to this article in hope of finding a description of the interesting statue of Thomas Cubitt in his biography article. The pile of bricks is obvious, but what is he holding and what is the drapery? Can someone on the scene answer this? The explanation could certainly be added to his biography.
I will add a similar note to Cubitt's biography. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Humphrey Tribble the description with this file [6] helps with 'notched measuring stick' but could not be used as a source. The tarpaulin is possibly being used to retain moisture. The pillars and rope also are of interest and likely building related.SovalValtos (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Humphrey Tribble: I think that the measuring stick that Cubitt is holding is meant to represent a cubit and is a pun on his surname. (The stick also appears to be made up of cubes stuck together.) My understanding is that the sculpture depicts Cubitt removing a tarpaulin covering a shipment of bricks, to check that they are the correct size. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SovalValtos and Mertbiol. You came up with some information and prompted me to do a little more digging too. Looking at the high resolution photograph from Commons, I saw the coil of rope and could even make out the grommets in the tarpaulin. This is certainly the clearest photograph, taken on a cloudy day by someone who knew his business.
William Fawke died a few years ago and his website is shut down. However, someone seems to be keeping his Facebook page up. There, I found a unique photograph from the 4 o'clock direction which I believe is the Pimlico statue. Cubitt seems to be standing on a kind of shipping crate of architectural items. It is also clear that he has taken a brick from the centre of the pile. The measuring stick seems to be 10 units long judging by the size of the bricks and his hand. (Is there a standard for the size of bricks?) If the stick represents a cubit, the sculptor had a keen wit indeed.
VictorianWeb has several other photographs which may or may not be duplicated on
Looking at a photograph off the left side—I think it is the Dorking statue—there seems to be a vertical stack of something. However, I couldn't make out anything with simple image manipulations.
Geograph has a photograph of the Dorking statue from the rear. The rope is much clearer:
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1050366
The bricks look so authentic—including cement dust—that I wonder about the construction of the statue.
There are a few websites which contain information. I didn't come across an explicit statement but it appears to me that the Pimlico statue is the (1995?) original. The Dorking statue was apparently a (2000?) commissioned copy, and has slightly different information on the plaque. I haven't been through the sites in detail but I am documenting them here because I think the statue itself is worthy of an article (along with an article about William Fawke) It certainly fascinates me.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is already taking over my life so I don't know when or if I will be able to pursue it. If anyone reading this is interested, let me know so at least there is no duplication of effort. I would follow up on the Facebook page and even see if the email address is redirected. Then, a search of newspaper articles might produce information from the time the statues were installed. Jacqueline Banerjee alludes to an obituary. It would be wonderful to dig out some comments from the sculptor about the symbolism.
♦ jaguar 15:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
♦ jaguar 19:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
This article is good to go and ideally should be showcased in the (pictured) slot. I strongly recommend 
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Cubitt_by_William_Fawke,_2000_(3965738227).jpg){kind=link}
