Talk:Kingston upon Hull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Kingston upon Hull was a nominee for Geography and places good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
June 10, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kingston upon Hull article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
To-do list for Kingston upon Hull: edit · history · watch · refresh

Following on from GA review -

  • Add details on local housing stock
  • Add social class details
  • Add Poor law union, Sanitary district and/or Local board of health for Hull
  • Expand services with details of who supplies electricity, gas, water services, note on hospital services etc.
  • Add court detail to policing section (photo of court & prison are available if required)
  • Create sub-articles
    • Notable people from Hull for list of notable people associated with city
    • History of Hull - to allow for expansion of history section
    • List of Churches
    • List of Schools (in progress)
    • List of Lord Mayors including Mayors
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1, /Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Photo archive

The Hull City Council photo archive web site is currently off line and I have commented out the link in the article, It can be restored when the site is back on line or a new system is enabled. Keith D (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Andrew Marvell

The article is a good read, but why no mention of Andrew Marvell, one of the country's great poets? His most famous poem mentions the Humber and he's even got a statue in Hull. He was Hull's MP too, and a large number of his parliamentary letters are preserved in Hull.

It might also be worth mentioning that two of the supreme ecclesiastical buildings of England - Beverley Minster (very close) and Patrington, the finest decorated Gothic church in the country, are near the city.


Bandalore (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Distance to the North Sea

This is (according to Google Earth measuring tool) 10.5 miles as the crow flies or 25 miles sailing down the Humber.As not many crows read Wikipeda , I think we'll stick with 25 miles.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kingston upon Hull/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Gary King (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I would've passed this so quickly. I think most of the data itself is good, but the placement of images and the organization still needs a lot of work.
  • Unnecessary bold text in the bullet points under 'governance' should be removed per WP:MOS. Y Done
  • The climate chart overlaps into the demographics section over on the right. I'd recommend using {{Average and record temperatures}} instead, which won't do that.
    • Moved chart to top of section as per Manchester article.
      • Replaced previous chart with table and added image--Harkey (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Demographics is very short, and looks very awkward with a little intro, followed by a table, and then two footnotes for the table below. I question whether the demographics section can be really called "complete" at this point. One thing that would help would be to move the 'religion' section into 'demographics' -- it really shouldn't be it's own main section anyway.
    • Add some employment detail and added Religion section to end without header.
  • Demote 'transportation and infrastructure'; it should be one of the last sections in the article. Infrastructure related things aren't nearly as important as things like culture and economy.
    • Moved to later in article above Public services.
  • 'Economy' has a very short sentence on the port, and then another sentence on some businesses based in the city, comprising the first, very short paragraph. Then, there's a rather large paragraph on shopping centers, which are not nearly as notable and don't contribute nearly as much to the economy as businesses based here. Unless, of course, the town derives much of its economy from tourism, but I don't see that mentioned here. I'm not getting anything of value out of the table of regional trends; there's insufficient text introducing the table, and the table really doesn't offer much to the article. In short, the economy section needs major expansion and is does not meet the "completeness" criterion at WP:WIAGA.
    • Pulled table and slight expansion on port & businesses
  • The 'regeneration' section should be moved to history, since it's historical in nature. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to put this section several sections separated from history.
    • Moved to end of History section
  • 'Public services' is really connected to 'infrastructure', and should be included with that section.
    • Remove header and leave under Transport and infrastructure headings.
  • Many of the subsections under 'culture' are very short, and could be expanded. Although this is not so much of a GA-related issue, moving forward I think it would be wise to not have individual subsections for 'literature', 'theatre', 'classical music', etc, and instead try to focus on weaving the various elements of culture into one coherent, well-written main section on culture.
    • Noted for later work
      • Removed section headings copyedited for better flow resized and moved images--Harkey (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The section on 'Reputation' is not normally included as a main section in city articles, and its inclusion has serious WP:NPOV issues. It's citing a lot of matters of opinion, and while things like the media citations of, "the worst place to live in Britain" and "The Best and Worst Places to Live in Britain", putting it in a main section like this is putting far too much weight on it. While these two sources technically meet WP:RS, I don't think this much weight should be put into a top 10 list which is essentially an advertisement in disguise as journalism. But also, in the next paragraph, the sentence, "In spite of these issues, many of the city's residents are very proud of Hull, its history, and its traditions, using such terms as "underrated", "thriving", "fantastic", and "wonderful" to describe their home." is cited by a real estate blog, which is not a reliable source. This whole section needs to be removed; some material can be moved to other parts of the article, but as it stands, it does not meet WP:NPOV.
    • Section pulled

At the present time, the article does not meet the GA criteria, and I am delisting it at sending it back to WP:GAN under on hold status. Once the issues are addressed, it can be listed. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This review is meant to verify if changes have been made to the article to achieve GA status. 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Prose is awkward in places. Run-on sentences with unbalanced appositives are the norm and make the article difficult to read. Use of passive voice is frequent and unnecessary. For example, "Archaeological surveys, conducted between 1994 and 2001, in the wetland environment of the Hull valley have discovered that the area has been inhabited since the early Neolithic period" is probably best rewritten as "Archaeological surveys of the Hull valley conducted in the late 1990s show evidence that the area has been inhabited since the early Neolithic period." For example, "Originally an outlying part of the nearby hamlet of Myton, the site was chosen in the late 12th century by the monks of Meaux Abbey to develop as a new town named Wyke upon Hull. The River Hull provided a good haven for shipping whose main trade was in the export of wool from the abbey and other local landlords. The town was acquired from the abbey by King Edward I in 1293, who granted a royal charter, dated April 1, 1299, that renamed the settlement King's town upon Hull, or Kingston upon Hull" can be written as, "Originally an outlying part of the nearby hamlet of Myton, 12th century monks from Meaux Abbey developed the area into a new town named Wyke upon Hull. King Edward I acquired the town in 1293, and granted a royal charter on 1 April, 1299. The charter renamed the settlement "King's town upon Hull", or alternatively, Kingston upon Hull." Further, areas need to be condensed. In general, sections are too long/wordy and sentences can be combined/separated to provide better flow to the article. Information is also repeated unnecessarily in sections.
    B. MoS compliance:
    All abbreviations need to be written out (and preferably linked) the first time so that those not familiar with the term can understand what it means. Minor point: As a general rule, in formal writing like this, use the term "United States" or "US" instead of "America".
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Need references: History section, paragraph ending "Princes Quay shopping centre"; Governance section, paragraphs ending "Independent member for Yorkshire" and "Hull was made a unitary authority area"; Demography section, sentence ending "particularly in the transepts" (note: why is this info even in Demographics? It should be part of the history/culture/geography sections); Transport section, sentences ending "travel inland as far as Goole", "to many European destinations" and paragraph ending "are operated by EYMS."; and Dialect section, sentences ending "variation across areas and generations" and "had received a phone call".
    C. No original research:
    As some pieces are not cited, unable to determine if there is OR. Likely OR in dialect and transport sections.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Like said above in prose section, go through the article and try to determine what is necessary to keep in the article. What points are actually interesting to general readers of the article and which piece of information are simply trivial?
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Photo captions should generally not end in a period. For example, "One Humber Quays, home to the World Trade Centre Hull & Humber." should not end in a period because it is not a sentence (there is no verb). So either remove the periods on those captions or insert a verb so it says "One Humber Quays is home to the World Trade Centre Hull & Humber."
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Still cannot recommend GA status, mostly due to problems with prose and organization. Topics are introduced in unusual sections. For example, all the information under the panorama about recent developments, which by its very definition, is not history. The information is also repeated in the economy section, even though that is where it is probably best displayed. Further, there are too many unjustified subsections. Not every new topic needs its own subsection, separate paragraphs do just fine. As the article has already exceeded the week-long revision deadline, article will fail GA status for now but please renominate when revisions are complete. Good luck! Best, Epicadam (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reputation section

This section was pulled as a result of comments on the GA review and has been placed here as a holding place. Some of the material may be useful to put in other sections.

Hull's history is that of a solidly industrial city, with working-class sensibilities. Like many other cities and towns, it has suffered the negative effects of Britain's transition to a post-industrial society. These effects include, among other things, a decaying infrastructure, a diminished industrial base, and areas of urban blight. These factors contribute to Hull having the second highest level of deprivation in England, after Liverpool.[1] Hull was named "the worst place to live in Britain" in the Channel 4 programme "The Best and Worst Places to Live in Britain"[2] and the "second worst place" in 2007,[3] after being absent from the 2006 list of worst places to live.[4] In spite of these issues, many of the city's residents are very proud of Hull, its history, and its traditions, using such terms as "underrated", "thriving", "fantastic", and "wonderful" to describe their home.[5] Many residents and visitors also credit it for its down-to-earth, working class-attitude and its friendly nature.[5] The University of Hull has a reputation of being one of the friendliest universities in the United Kingdom.[6]

Hull's national reputation is also reflected by the positive striving of the Council to improve the city's welfare. However, the city has had poor performance in terms of most socioeconomic indicators in comparison with the rest of the UK. Hull City Council was designated as the UK's worst performing authority in both 2004 and 2005, which the Council are trying to improve with its new £200 million St. Stephen's project.

Hull is seen as something of a national oddity: a large city, in the midst of a very rural part of Yorkshire, at the very edge of the nation.[7] The rest of the East Riding has always looked upon Hull as a very different entity, and government decisions have taken this into account with things such as post codes, telephone networks and other regional groupings.

[edit] Economy section

This table was pulled from the Economy section as a result of comments on the GA review and has been placed here as a holding place.

Below is a table of trends of regional gross value added for Hull at current basic prices.[8]

Year Regional Gross Value Added (millions of GB₤)[a] Agriculture[b] Industry[c] Services[d]
1995 2,748 5 1,014 1,729
2000 3,231 3 1,205 2,023
2003 3,711 6 1,406 2,299
a  Components may not sum to totals due to rounding
b  Includes hunting and forestry
c  Includes energy and construction
d  Includes financial intermediation services indirectly measured