Talk:Broadfield, West Sussex

This article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, and the consensus was keep: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Broadfield

This page sounds rather as if it was written by an estate agent. It needs to serious NPOV and factual correction. akaDruid 14:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have added a NPOV and factual message to the top. Specifically, these are some of the areas that need looking at:

the fact that its actually quite a good place to live is one of the town's best-kept secrets - self promotion, very un NPOV, and factually incorrect.
Broadfield has one central shopping parade, the largest in the town. Huh? Incorrect. It is less than 10% of the size of the main shopping parade in Northgate.
At the Southern extremity of Broadfield is the only part of town designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty at Pease Pottage, and towards the A264 is the Buchan Country Park, a particularly beautiful area of natural conservation. The Pease Pottage site is currently home to a scout camp, although there are frequent calls for a new hospital to be built in this corner of the High Weald AONB. None of these areas are in Broadfield. It is also a common self-promotion to link Broadfield with the desirable area of Pease Pottage to the south.
Finally, Broadfield is now connected to Gatwick Airport by the new 24-hour Fastway buses, providing a quick and reliable service to the airport for many of the residents who work there. See the main Crawley Fastway article for some of the problems with this. Its not quick or reliable, its hardly used, and it is meant as a replacement to the existing buses.

akaDruid 15:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK. Not an estate agent - just a happy resident. The first point is a fair one, though maybe a matter of opinion. The shopping parade comment should refer to neighbourhood parades - ie not the town centre Buchan country park is outside the Broadfield/Crawley boundaries, although it feels like its within. The Pease Pottage land is actually within the town boundaries although it feels like it is outside. When the new bypass was built it left a few odd-shaped bits of land stranded on the far side. Geographically they are contiguous with the High Weald AONB and would make more sense to not be part of Crawley, but they are, and are part of Broadfield. Fastway is itself a topic of great controversy within the town. However, with 1.5 million passengers so far (Summer 2004) it would not be correct to say it is hardly used. Having used the service I have always found it to be regular and quick.

If you're fortunate enough to live at one end of the route and travel to the other end of the route, you may see a benifit. It may have had 1.5 million journeys (not passengers) but 80% of Crawley couldn't use it even if we wanted to, and we still pay twice for it - millions in taxes, and millions more in fuel/delays/pollution/stress caused by construction. Just think if they had spent that money on real roads. Not only would your bus journey (and everyone elses) be quicker, but all the poor drivers that pay the most for this would benefit 24/7 too. Instead of which, the bus lanes sit empty 99% of the time, while the car drivers wait at all the new traffic lights, spending money on fuel which just pollutes our planet. Anyway, I've ranted enough, here and elsewhere.

I worked in Broadfield for some years and I know people who live there, so I've seen a fair bit of it. It's not bad in places, but it would not be NPOV to call it 'a great place to live' or anything like that. It's one of the cheaper areas of Crawley, in terms of actual market value of houses, but aside from that, I don't think it is really significantly better or worse than the other neighbourhoods from an encylopedic point of view. People do tend to use dishonest references when they advertise their houses. Things like 'lower pease pottage', 'broad oak', 'tolgate hill' and so on. On the road signs and maps, its Broadfield so calling it anything else is incorrect.

I would have thought that the village of Pease Pottage is distinct from Broadfield as such, but it may well come under that jurisdiction. On a map like this one, it certainly looks seperate.

Anyhow, I've already sworn off from editing Crawley Fastway or anything like it, cos I don't feel I can edit from a NPOV. I'll leave this one alone for now too, someone else can take a NPOV from the outside. akaDruid 10:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have updated the page to remove what seemed like unecessary or over the top phrases, and to provide a more wiki-like style. However, a page like this will always have a more parochial feel than some. It would be nice to have the original NPOV/Factual removed if possible, or further edits made if it still seems wrong. --jodastephen 15:07, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know nothing about the place, but I can't see any remaining justification for the POV notice, so I'm removing it. Wincoote 10:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broadfield, West Sussex. 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/20131217105621/http://www.footballgroundguide.com/crawley_town/ to http://www.footballgroundguide.com/crawley_town/

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]