Talk:Giffnock

Giffnock has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 1, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed
April 16, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
August 28, 2013	Peer review	Not reviewed

Current status: Good article

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Picture

Added a new picture --Coolmark18 20:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the picture up into the Infobox. It may be smaller but I feel that it makes the page look better overall. Cabe 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does look better. Coolmark18 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info?

- This article appears to be biased by only referring to the schools the author is familar with. There are more schools in Giffnock, Giffnock Primary School, OLM and Woodfarm High School. I feel this article should be expanded to support these additions.

If you are familiar with the area then perhaps you should add these details. Fraslet 15:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Is anybody aware of Giffnock's etymology? Wk 85 (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that somebody has added that "[t]he name Giffnock is thought to derive from the Old Norse 'geof', meaning hill or mound, and 'nuck', for tree or shrub." While this might be true, 'geof' doesn't look like Old Norse to me -- 'eo' isn't used. What's the source for this? --Twid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Gordon Brown

What evidence is there that Gordon Brown was born here? A quote from his page suggests otherwise: but because of that, although Fife [Scotland], where I grew up, was a long way from Israel . Could someone provide a citation of this fact please.

Gordon Brown, I'm told, was born in the nursing home which is now the Orchard Park Hotel. I know there was an article in the Glasgow version of the Metro newspaper last year claiming this. He neglects to mention his actual place of birth in that quote, merely that he grew up in a place other than Giffnock. Chrisc21 (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Gordon Brown says he was born in Govan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.40.178 (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source article '2' says: Gordon Brown was born in Giffnock, Scotland, in 1951 to John Ebeneezer Brown and his wife, Jessie Elizabeth Souter 82.6.180.164 (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Whitecraigs be merged into Giffnock. Whitecraigs is within Giffnock and much of the information is either duplicated or would simply do better as a mention in the Giffnock article. I propose that the content be cut down and moved to within the Giffnock article. This a bit of a weak proposal though so I want to see what others think. The locality is not given any coverage within the census [1] and all stats for Whitecraig residents will come upder the Giffnock locaity. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty sensible to me. They can always be split out in the future if they really need it. AFAICT, the merger would make for a better Giffnock article for now, for sure. --Jza84 | Talk 14:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite not much discussion I've been bold and merged some of the relevant content and redirected Whitecraigs to Giffnock Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstone to Suburbia: History of Giffnock

I've ordered this book with the intention of using it to improve the article to at least GA status in the future. If anyone would like me to use it to check any information for a source or fact leave me a message on my talk page. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Giffnock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 15:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've had a quick look at this nomination and it appears to be at, or possibly just below, GA-level. I've seen quite a few single-sentence and two-sentence paragraphs about, some sections are full of them; but I merged a few of these single and double-sentence paragraphs. So the prose is somewhat marginal. There appears to be some WP:OVERLINKING, and some of the statements about railways are historically inaccurate as they use modern-day names, not historically accurate descriptions.

However, the article appears to have a reasonable chance of making GA-status this time round, so I will review it in more depth: starting at the History section and finishing with the WP:Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History -

I would suggest a minor change to the statement in the second paragraph "The first written mention of the area came in 1530, when ....". This use of the word "area" is very vague: the reference used specifically states that Giffnock was a hamlet in the Parish of Eastwood. If the sentence is referring to "area", then is it Eastwood Parish or the hamlet of Giffnock and the surrounding crofting strips? The citation itself is referring to the hamlet of Giffnock and the crofting strips, so perhaps the word "area" aught to read (just) "Giffnock".

Done, I simply wrote area from a prose point of view to avoid repeating Giffnock too many times. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Pyrotec (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the third paragraph, liver rock and moor rock aught to be in quotes e.g. "liver rock" and "moor rock", since they are referring to building stones ~~of different colours: one red the other "white" (but sometimes described by estate agents as "blond")~~. They are both "sandstones", more specifically they are both freestone, sandstones of the Upper Limestone group of the Carboniferous.

I need to "strike-through" my comments about "different colours" in the light of new information. {{Template:Thomas-History-VI}}, in reference to the Busby Railway, states that Giffnock had two quarries. "Liver rock", which came from one Giffnock quarry, was fine-grained whitish sandstone used by builders and carvers; and, "the other quarry yielded "Eastwood pavement" a foliated limestone used for stairs, hearths and above all pavements of Glasgow's streets". I don't know whether "Eastwood pavement" and "moor rock" are the same. But since "Liver rock" was described as "whitish", it possibly not a "redish" - "cream" distinction. Pyrotec (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liver rock and moor rock now have quotation marks. Regarding the bit about the Carboniferous era, it's briefly mentioned in the Geography section as The underlay is composed mainly of sedimentary rocks and freestone from the Strathclyde and Clackmannan groups of early to mid Carboniferous age (354 to 316 million years). I added and linked 'freestone' as you mentioned above. Is it suitable here alone or should it be mentioned additionally in the history section? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Y Pyrotec (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that the material does not need to be in the article twice, but as I've not yet reviewed the Geography section, I'd prefer to make a final decision later. Pyrotec (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having new reviewed Geography section, I'm going to "tick this one off". Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The third paragraph has sloppy editing claiming that the Glasgow South Western Line, pipelined to the Glasgow-East Kilbride Railway, was built. The more accurate reference (4), which was not used here, states the Glasgow to Busby railway. This was the Caledonian Railway company's Busby railway, most certainly NOT the Glasgow and South Western Railway, as implied by this article.

Changed the pipe, is it ok now? The Caledonian Railway didn't absorb the Busby Railway until 1882 though so I haven't mentioned them in the article there. Thoughts on this? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its better now since the Glasgow South Western Line does have a "red-link" to Busby railway, as does Caledonian Railway#Expansion lines of around Glasgow and Paisley, by the way. I checked on the Caledonian Railway. The Busby railway was promoted by local businessmen to exploit the Giffnock quarries (see also, above) and line was run from the start by the Caledonian Railway; but, as you state, the Caledonian Railway did not take it over until later. Y Pyrotec (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sixth paragraph claims that Giffnock railway station open in 1854, which is ten years before that railway line opened (see third paragraph), so one of these claims is likely to be a typo.

Fixed. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Y Pyrotec (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The seventh paragraph, again, has historically vague claims: Whitecraigs stations was indeed opened in 1903, but it lay on the Neilson branch of the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway, not on the Neilson branch of the Cathcart Circle Lines, which is a more recent naming convention. That could have been checked quite easily by reading the article Cathcart Circle Lines, which states: The Cathcart Circle Lines are formed of lines built by the Cathcart District Railway (Cathcart Circle) and the Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway (Newton and Neilston lines). These statements in the Giffnock article are unreferenced and wikipedia is not regard as a "reliable source" for citing in other wikipedia articles, but it happens to be more accurate in this respect than the Giffnock article.

Changed to the historical name and addded a citation. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Y Pyrotec (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review thus far Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Governance -

This section looks compliant.

Geography -

This section looks compliant.

Demography -

It looks like a possible typo for the median age of females in Giffnock - 43 not 39?

Fixed. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 23:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph, a question of arithmetic, where does the "Fifty six percent were married" come from - the ref seems to state: (Married couple household - with dependent children 25.46% + Married couple household - with no dependent children 20.41% ) have I missed something out?

link to source - In the Marital Status bit under 'population' it says "% Married (first marriage): 55.97%". I think you may be looking at the household tab rather than the population tab. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 23:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it looks like both ref 27 and 29 are needed here, so I added ref 27. Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph it states: Giffnock has higher proportions of people born outside the Europe, and people over pensionable age.[27] and I'd agree with that, but what it does not say is that there are fewer in the 16-44 (actually, the 16-29 and 30-44) age groups, i.e. school-leavers through to middle-age/working-age people. So, is that reflected in employment statistics?
In fact, the third paragraph does have employment/unemployment statistics, but unlike the second paragraph there is no comparison for Giffnock against the average demography of Scotland.

I've done some work on these points. How does it look? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 21:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transport -

Generally OK, but there is no mention of buses, I'd consider them to be a public transport, and presumably pensioners and other groups get bus passes so can travel cheaply or free outside peak hours?

Added a bit about the 38 bus Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y. Pyrotec (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few minor fixes tonight but I'm heading off so will endeavour to work on the article tomorrow to clear up the demographic section and add busses. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 23:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Education -

It would be good if a date could be added for the opening of the lodge house school. Based on sentence-order it appears to be pre-1902.

I'll have a flick through the source book when I get home later but, from memory, I don't think a date is given Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, these dates pre-1902? and 1902 appear to be "rather late", based on what is given in History, but perhaps there was a only small number of local children and at this stage they went to school elsewhere in Eastwood?

I can only presume. Again, I'll have another look through the source for any clarifying information Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extract from Sandstone to Suburbia

As regards education in Giffnock, there is evidence of a small private school which operated at "Ingleneuk", the lodge house to Redhurst House. This school was run by Miss Fardner. In 1902, due to increased population, a public school was opened in the Tower Rooms of Giffnock United Free Church, now known as Orchardhill Parish Church. The school operated under the auspices of Eastwood School Board. In order to fulfill the demands made by the Board as to the minimum number of pupils, two children had to be taken from Ingleneuk School and educated at Orchardhill instead. The younger children were taught in the lower room of the Church and the older ones in the Upper room.

It then goes on to talk about the main school and not much more information is given regarding the lodge house school. Judging by the fact that they had to take some children from the private school to meet the minimum number I'd imagine there wasn't many children in the area or, at least, not that many requiring public schooling. Quite possibly the various merchants had their children educated privately but I don't want to synth this into the article. Thoughts? Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Looking at History of education in Scotland#Nineteenth century it seems that the local school board responsible for education was run by the Parish of Eastwood and Giffnock had adequate schooling. I'll "close" these two down. Y Y. Pyrotec (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The web link for the library in ref 37, seems to be broken.

Fixed Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y. Pyrotec (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this section looks OK.

Culture and Community -

This section looks compliant.
However, the link in ref 46 for Whitecraigs Rgby club goes to Scottish Rugby. There is a search facility, so I suspect that the link needs a minor tweak.

It seems they changed their entire website completely since I last looked. I've dug through it and changed the source. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y. Pyrotec (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public services -

This section looks compliant.

WP:Lead -

This is required to comply with WP:WIAGA clause 1(b) and the more detailed requirements of WP:Lead; and in general it does. At four (short) paragraphs in length, it is compliant with the suggested three or four paragraphs format; and its fairly representative of what is in the body of the article.
However, I don't think that in certain aspects it fully reflects what is in the body of the article. In particular:

Perhaps "Expansion continues due to several new housing developments; however, much of the land is now urbanised, leaving little room for further expansion." reflects Giffnock as it exists, but reading the body of the article "Giffnock has numerous parks including Rouken Glen, Huntly Park and Eastwood Park where the East Renfrewshire Council offices are based. There remains some ancient woodland in Giffnock which could be as old as 8,000 years"; there is "Greenbank Garden, an 18th century house and garden owned by the National Trust for Scotland is located within Giffnock. The house has a 2.5 acres (1.0 ha) walled garden, ..." and "In 1905 the Whitecraigs Golf Club was founded..... In 1983, Jack Nicklaus visited the club". The body of the article seems to indicate significant "green space", but that seems to conflict with what is in the lead:, i.e. urbanised land with little room for expansion.

What I was going for is that the only places really left to build on are parks as the area is contiguous with neighbouring areas now. I see how that wasn't clear so I've added a few words to hopefully clarify. I believe the only thing left to do is the demographics. I'll try get that done tonight Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm putting the review "On Hold", there are few minor "problems" that need to be addressed and some "questions" that I've posted. It would be helpful to me if these could be cleared up Wednesday, at which point I'm likely to award GA-status. I'm on holiday after that. Pyrotec (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a minor rewrite of the Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative article on the urban settlement of Giffnock.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Thanks for diligently attending to my requests for minor improvements to parts of the article. I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on getting the article up to this standard. Pyrotec (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing a thorough review and taking an interest in the article Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request at UK geo for PR

Hi, just a few points for your request at WP:UK geo.

Would be good to get a representative image for the infobox, especially as there is very few images at top of article. Worth checking on Commons to see if there is a category for images set up so that a {{Commons category}} link can be added.
In the Education section St Ninian's High School is noted with a role that is now 8 years old. Would be good to get a more recent figure.
Would be good to standardise on the date format in the references section which is a mixture of day first and ISO format dates.

Keith D (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith D: Thanks for the suggestions. I've found an updated source on the school role and standarized the dates to day-first. I feel that date style is clearer and with ISO format I'm never sure if its the of Year-Month-Day or Year-Day-Month. I'll see about getting an image for the infobox. Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have located the commons images and have added a link to the bottom of article. Keith D (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith, thanks for your comments and assistance. I'd like to take this article up to FA class but, having never done anything like that before I'm finding it hard to determine the scope. Cheers, Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Giffnock. 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: 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) 19:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Giffnock. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpr.org.uk/downloads/Synagogue%20membership.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080114055937/http://www.energylinx.co.uk/distribution_network_operators.htm to http://www.energylinx.co.uk/distribution_network_operators.htm

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) 08:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Giffnock. 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/20130915115718/http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scottishschoolsonline/schools/stninianshighschooleastrenfrewshire.asp to http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scottishschoolsonline/schools/stninianshighschooleastrenfrewshire.asp

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) 05:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Industry - Quarries

Hi. Not a regular Wikipedia editor, nor directly interested in Giffnock, but my own research suggests the statement "In 1854, a coal mining firm managed by civil engineers Hugh Baird and Robert Stevenson took over the running of the quarries" is incorrect. The reference ("Portal to the Past") no longer exists, but when it did, it did not provide evidence for this statement, and I can find no such evidence elsewhere. I note the reference to the Giffnock Conservation Area Appraisal of 2012 no longer works, and I couldn't find it online anywhere.

The quarries (some of them, anyway, Orchard & Giffnock) were taken over by Baird & Stevenson, Quarrymasters c.1854, but these were De Hort Baird and William Stevenson, the former foreman and clerk at the quarry, who acquired them on the retirement of the previous owner.

Is it acceptable to edit the article and reference my own work? I could also reference Stevenson's newspaper obituary if necessary. Bygone Bungo, William Stevenson

Adownie (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]