Talk:Cambourne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cambourne article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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.	United Kingdom Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance within the UK geography WikiProject.

[edit] Point of View

This article seems to take an overwhelmingly positive view of the amenities and environment of Cambourne. However, a relatively recent survey (http://www.cambourne.info/Events/CAMBOURNESURVEYREPORT220107_final.pdf - summer 06) suggested that more than a third of residents thought that services weren't being developed quickly enough, almost a quarter thought that the range of shops was poor, etc. Should there be more balance in this article? Savirr 16:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more - it sounds like something out of an advertising brochure. Some of the content is pretty trivial ("The senior 1st team has won promotion in 2006 (its first season), and is looking to build on this success during 2007") and a great deal is unverified/unverifiable ("Football is the most popular sport being played in Cambourne"). I'm tempted to tidy things up, but will end up gutting the article (or adding "citation needed" tags all over the place) if I'm not careful. Any objections to this happening? Chrisjohnson 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The article pretty clearly needed a {{Unreferenced}}, so I added one. I think one for the whole article ought to indicate the need for references well enough. A considerate approach is to give other editors time to add them in, or try to find sources yourself before deleting things outright, although WP:VERIFY reads pretty sternly about deleting unsourced statements straightaway. In any case, feel free to identify the WP:PEACOCK language bits, and edit them into suitably neutral encyclopedic prose. --Teratornis 05:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now done a bit of tidying up, removing only the worst bits and changing the language of some others. Chrisjohnson 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)