Talk:Cadw
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help! |  |
Corporate Press release??
editThis article reads like a corporate Press Release with no objectivity or criticism and not suitably written for an encyclopedia article. Anyone want to try and rewrite it a little better? I am not sure that I could. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.129.52 (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that EVERY reference is from their own web site is an issue for a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.129.52 (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've slightly reworded the lede intro, clarified some of the content, added a 'Membership' section and also added a 'primary sources' clean-up template. Much as I value and admire what they do, I agree the WP article sounds more like a mission statement from cadw rather than a neutral, independently sourced encyclopedia article. Sionk (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Criticism
editOne common criticism of CADW I have heard is that when they declare a property 'of histoical importance' they can demand the owner makes very expensive repairs and veto any potential modifications. This reduces the vlaue of the property. In some cases the owners must sell up becuase they cannot afford to do so. Note that CADW does not pay for the repairs as far as i knwo. However i do not have a quotable source for this, but it did happen to a relative of mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.198.199.65 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, that's one way of looking at it. Another is that Cadw takes the necessary steps, under its statutory powers, to maintain and protect buildings that have historical significance. KJP1 (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- From experience, another take is that FoIA releases show Cadw is severely under-resourced, for some years stopped scheduling monuments, even though this was undeclared and not provided for under legislation, and detests input from anyone other than itself. It is a body that has become focused on income generation and self-preservation. It does some good work, especially when it involves other authorities' priorities (e.g. slate landscape) but it needs a total overhaul as unfit for purpose. 2A00:23C6:3291:B701:1986:4424:F7D1:9DBA (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)