Northumbrian (talk | contribs) Coding to generate table of contents. |
LarkinToad2010 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
And, as an aside, as this is a group project, [[Wikipedia:CONS#Consensus-building|engagement on the talk page regarding concerns raised about particular edits or patterns of edits is always encouraged]]. [[User:Northumbrian|Northumbrian]] ([[User talk:Northumbrian|talk]]) 19:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC) |
And, as an aside, as this is a group project, [[Wikipedia:CONS#Consensus-building|engagement on the talk page regarding concerns raised about particular edits or patterns of edits is always encouraged]]. [[User:Northumbrian|Northumbrian]] ([[User talk:Northumbrian|talk]]) 19:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
Dear established Users. No, there is no 'agenda' to the updates and Larkin 25 entries other than to update readers on a current event and to update some outdated and thin info in related areas. I felt the University of Hull section needed filling out to place it better in Hull than just 'on Cottingham Road'. All future edits will be logged in by [[User:LarkinToad2010|LarkinToad2010]] ([[User talk:LarkinToad2010|talk]]) 21:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC). It does help that [[User:LarkinToad2010|LarkinToad2010]] ([[User talk:LarkinToad2010|talk]]) 21:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC) is in England and not editing from offshore. |
Revision as of 21:50, 19 June 2010
Kingston upon Hull 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. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Suggestions for improvements
Thank you for your comments, please don't delete this section. The intro mentions 'regeneration' but does not say how long this has gone on. Since when? The 80s, early 2000s? (It seems forever in Hull) I still think more Hull highlights could be added to the intro as some of the statements lack facts or context. More could be added to underline how far 'regeneration' has relied on retail and tourism along with the increased student population and ethnic groups over the last decade. I will restrict my additions to updating the Larkin 25 section and any obvious errors such as 'it's' for its.WilberforceHope (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think anybody would be inclined to remove a new section on suggestions for improvements on an article talk page, as long as the discussion remained on topic.
- There used to be two sections in the article on Reputation and Regeneration a few years ago; these were removed as a recommendation from the good article review as they seemed to give undue weight to the city's decline and efforts to rebuild (for instance, few or no other articles on UK cities in similar situations had sections like that), and the remaining relevant information from those sections was incorporated into the rest of the article.
- I'm not saying we can't improve the lead paragraph along those lines, and would be happy for the attempt, but I think we would need to be careful not to stress the regeneration and attractions too much, again for consideration of undue weight. If we aren't careful about it, the lead might also start giving the impression of a non-neutral point of view, coming across as less encyclopaedic and more of a civic-boosterish travelogue (and I say this as a big fan of the city and its attempts to regenerate). Still, keeping those caveats in mind, I don't see a problem trying, and also tracking down sources and developing context for the other items already in the lead you mention. Anybody else like to weigh in? Northumbrian (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just as a note that the lead should summarise the rest of the article so you should not introduce anything into the lead which is not covered in more detail in the remainder of the article. See WP:LEAD for details of what should be in the lead and the approximate length to aim for with a lead section. Keith D (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Vandal alert!
A user, AndewJockley or somesuch is inserting a line on 'crap towns' in the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.159.212 (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not a vandal. Check my long history, and don't make unjustified accusations. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Crap town redux...
It looks like this topic is rearing its head again.
Several years ago, the article used to mention the Crap Towns listing; its suitability for inclusion was discussed at the time with no real consensus reached then and several times thereafter, so it stayed in.
However, during the course of efforts to raise the quality of the article to Good Article status that I and several other regular editors took, one of the peer reviewers (under item #20 listed here in the archive) recommended removing the sections with titles such as The case against Hull and Reputation (the old Reputation section is, in fact, stored on this talk page) and incorporating relevant material into the appropriate sections of the article such as History, Economy, Education, etc. As part of that effort, I seem to recall the consensus was to remove items such as the Crap Towns reference and Channel 4's Worst Places in Britain as trivial and unencyclopaedic, and not conducive to achieving and maintaining Good Article status.
I don't see that the Crap Towns reference has become any more relevant or suitable for inclusion again since the Good Article reviews. My preference is to leave it out, for the same reasons given during the Good Article efforts. Northumbrian (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do not think it really adds much to the article, is rather dated and needs balancing with other reviews of the city as by itself it is really out of place. Keith D (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The current article reads like something the tourist board produces, apart from generally uncited negative remarks. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such should point out that a number of prominent sources have ranked Hull as among the most unpleasant places in the UK. Crap towns, whilst humorous, is also a reliable source, as its creation accords with due process. Just because something is funny doesn't stop it being an RS. (eg Roger's Profanisaurus). If you don't like Crap towns, then find another source which properly describes Hull's unpleasantness and include it. Wikipedia is not an advert, and if this article doesn't improve it needs to have a warning banner put up for lack of balance as regards sourced criticism. Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Andrew, if you're so concerned about the article, its quality and its neutrality, may I suggest that you:
- remove some of the more egregious unsourced positivist fluff that makes it read like a tourist board publication to you, or
- find other, more specific reliable sources such as news services or government statistics (for instance, like those for school ratings in the Education section) that provide some of the negativity you think the article needs, or
- choose an item from the to-do list at the top of this page to work on
rather than push to have the city labeled as a Crap Town? To be honest, comments of yours like these suggest to me that your interest in Hull begins and ends with doing so rather than actually improving its article, as does your seeming quest to slap the label on other towns with no other edits to improve those either. And all that, in turn, suggests that you seem less interested in promoting a neutral point of view than in spreading the Crap Town word. Northumbrian (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- When I find a good source, be that book, journal, etc., I like to weave it into articles. I don't usually have a problem with POV-pushers trying to remove such sources. The problem here isn't what's in the article (I'm sure that even Hull has nice parts) but instead what's missing. Scroll up and you can see a consistent pattern of removal of negative sources and comments - crap towns being only one example. I really don't have the time to edit war against a bunch of people who are apparently defending the honour of Hull against the cruel onslaught of truth. I've noticed this quite a lot with town articles on Wikipedia. You take the trouble to point out that somewhere's a dump with some properly cited comments, and then a bunch of locals(?) come along and try to convince people that despite the obvious general collapse of the place, it's just like Henley-on-Thames. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not some kind of game to make your favourite place look good to people who don't know much about it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure there might be a way to 'work these in' to the Henley-on-Thames article, but I've no desire to. I don't harbour excessive grudges against localities based on personal prejudice. They are mainly just opinion anyway: http://www.chavtowns.co.uk/2004/07/henley-on-thames-yes-surprising-i-know/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/jan/03/communities.guardiansocietysupplement
Similarly, the 'Crap Towns' book is a collection of online postings and personal opinions eight years out of date. It is not a 'good source'.
By the way, the Wiki Hull entry mentions the city's economic decline on several occasions and also gives details related to it's causes (WWII, Post-Industrialisation, the Recession etc.) and effects using education data, crime data, population statistics etc..alongside balanced information related to recent attempts to reverse issues facing the city. At no point does it resort to using 'references' containing coarse language and heavily class based stereotyping. Radiator4612 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Issues with the article stemming from the Larkin 25 festival
Please feel free to follow the links in the discussion below as you come across them; they lead to useful Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Over the past month or so, there has been a huge increase in editing traffic to the article by anonymous editors from IP addresses, along with newly created accounts, dealing almost exclusively with the Larkin 25 festival specifically and festivals in the city generally. There are several issues that this situation raises with regard to article quality and Wikipedia policies and guidelines:
- Undue weight. When many similar edits are made to one aspect of a large article like Hull's, they can start to lend an air of undue weight to that aspect, inflating it, however worthy and notable it is, out of proportion to the rest of the article's content.
- Conflict of interest. I suspect, from the pattern of edits and from the user names of the some of the new accounts, that the editors might be connected to the Larkin 25 festival. This can indicate an inappropriate conflict of interest; in general, it's not good form for editors closely linked to an organisation or event to write about that event, as this can raise two questions:
- Neutrality. Editors closely connected to a subject run the risk of not presenting a neutral point of view, a core Wikipedia policy
- Advertising. Another core Wikipedia policy is that an article not be used for any sort of promotion, no matter how worthy.
- Recentism. This guideline helps keep content in an article in historical perspective. Some editors sum this up as "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news service."
I think those are the key involved policies and guidelines. The recent edits are also having some direct mechanical effects on the article.
Several years ago, I and some other dedicated editors, including Keith D, worked very hard in accordance with the project's guidelines to raise the Hull article to good article status. This involves, among other things, proper references for material, removal of non-encyclopaedic content, and consistent formatting. We've also worked to maintain those standards since then. The history of those efforts are in the talk page archives.
Some of the recent edits, while done in good faith, have been introducing inconsistent formatting (in some cases, breaking wikiformatting for existing references) and, to a lesser extent, other inappropriate items such as peacock terms, a form of non-useful puffery than can seem to violate the neutrality of the article. I, and to a far greater extent, Keith, have been very busy trying to correct these as they appear, but it would be much easier if new and recent editors could be aware of these issues to start with (and thanks to those editors who've responded positively to the suggestions made on their talk pages regarding these issues!)
Keith and I are aware that we do not own the article; we welcome fresh material. However, he and I do have a vested interest in the article in which we've both put a lot of work to make good, and we're hoping that many of the new Larkin-centric editors will stay on after the festival is over and help us keep the article quality high. There is a lot to learn but also a lot of good information available and experienced editors willing to help.
Thanks, Northumbrian (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry concerns
There are now concerns raised that many of the recent edits by IP addresses and new accounts to this article are being performed by one user or group of users, based on similar editing patterns.
Please be aware that this behaviour is a violation of Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy, even if the edits are made in good faith and aren't obvious vandalism. Please follow the link for details on the policy.
Wikipedia's policy is that if a user wishes to regularly edit, then the user should
- register an account (that is, create a user name and login)
- log in to that account when editing (so that edits don't appear only as IP addresses in edit histories)
- use only that account, and no others
The policy also requests that there be one user per account; group accounts are highly discouraged.
If patterns of editing contrary to the sockpuppet policy continue (that is, similar edits continue from many different IP addresses or multiple accounts), then a sockpuppet inquiry will be opened, which could result in IP addresses and accounts being banned from editing. The best way to avoid this, again, is for one user to log in to one established account and use only that account.
And, as an aside, as this is a group project, engagement on the talk page regarding concerns raised about particular edits or patterns of edits is always encouraged. Northumbrian (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear established Users. No, there is no 'agenda' to the updates and Larkin 25 entries other than to update readers on a current event and to update some outdated and thin info in related areas. I felt the University of Hull section needed filling out to place it better in Hull than just 'on Cottingham Road'. All future edits will be logged in by LarkinToad2010 (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC). It does help that LarkinToad2010 (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC) is in England and not editing from offshore.