Talk:Dickens World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kent Portal
This article is within the scope of the Kent WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the county of Kent in South East England.
If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance for Kent-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

WikiProject Kent tasks:
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

The unreferenced/personally researched comments on this page must surely be removed? The last half of the article is POV or unreferenced.(unsigned)

  • It is an interesting point- but the first half of the article is personal promotion, and factual inaccurate just reflecting a press release and a commercial promotional website. The second half of article reflects that and is refering to local knowledge. Indeed, what we read here will no doubt occur in the Chatham Standard this coming week- then will be referenceable. This is similar to the companies Press Release which describes a situation that will eventually happen. The press are being kind to Dickens World- possibly because they will have to contradict there own articles, or possibly because the realise that the delay was caused by the need to have a dust free environment before the completed animatronics can be installed, which has got to happen before sound levels can be set, and this has to be done before the staff can be fully trained.
  • I cannot see why this is at the moment a Kent Article of Medium Importance- surely it is of Low importance. If it is now or in the future then Chatham Dockyard must have its status raised to High. ClemRutter 22:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have made the adjustment. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews

From the outset, I make no secret that I work at Dickens World, and I am well aware that there have been more than a few people who have gone home unhappy. I'm not on here to defend it, this isn't the place for that discussion- I'm only here to construct a NPOV encyclopedia article based on factual information. I agree there probably should be some lines referring to the fact that it wasn't fully operational when it opened (and still isn't), and that a lot of people have been disappointed when visiting, particularly over the first bank holiday weekend- those points are both factual and relevant to the article. But please, let's do it properly, without original research, and strive for WP:NPOV. Thank you. --Lawlore 00:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To clear the decks, I know people involved in the planning of the attraction, and understand the difficulty of writing an article knowing the aspiration and the actuality. But I have been approached by former constituents complaining of 'the Council wasting money on all the .....'
Perhaps there is a need for a subheading describing the final concept, and a subheading describing the current state of the project. There is a need to separated attributed fact from press releases. Quoting the MD is a form of self promotion and needs to be removed in the interest of WP:NPOV.
There is a need to look again at the text and replace 'is' with 'will' in certain cases
I think you should have transfered the personal research on to this talk page where it belongs but POV
It would be useful for DW to release some photo with a PD CC2.5 tag so they can be included: as even it you were to take some shots personally, there would be copyright difficulties.

ClemRutter 08:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Point taken about quoting the MD being self-promotion, although I'm unsure how that particular point (that DW is not and was never intended to be a theme park) could be reworded without causing questions of citation- that sort of claim would need a reference, and it's inevitable that is going to come from the MD. I had included the reference to Disney on the basis that many articles on DW [1], [2], [3] had made the same connection. If you can come up with a more NPOV way of presenting it, by all means be my guest.
As for the suggestion of splitting of the article into two headings (what is actually there and working, and what is supposed to be there), I agree that could prove a useful starting point. On my next shift, I will work on getting an accurate list of the current state of play with regards to what is and isn't operational yet (and possibly due dates, although I'm again wary of self-promotion)- as a restaurant worker, we tend not to see a lot of the rest of the site. Of course, a lot of that info is also to be found in the visitor reviews, and I'm not convinced it's changing on a daily basis just yet.
My edit yesterday (better, I feel, linked to than quoted, given its length) was to remove a POV personal review better suited to a site designed for that purpose. Whereas I accept something does still need to be added about the initial reaction, that wasn't the way to do it, and I see little relevant factual information to be salvaged from the review itself. Parts of it were downright false, and such comments as "I went there today" / "A personal visit" have no place in any Wikipedia article. I am sure we can come up with something more encyclopedic than that. --Lawlore 10:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The 11:35 edit is looking really good.ClemRutter 10:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)