Talk:Kingston upon Hull/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Since September I have been working with

Happy new year Keith and belated congratulations on the adminship. I've been working on other WP items lately but do need to get back to actively sourcing the article soon. I've been leaving invitations on talk pages (mostly IP addresses of late) to provide sources for content added. No one's accepted yet. :o) I'll give sourcing another crack this weekend. Perhaps an exhortation like this on the Yorkshire project page might also help interest other editors...? Cheers,

talk

) 15:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy new year to you - I put this up as I was getting frustrated at being unable to locate any sources and was trying to generate some other input. May be the Yorkshire project would be worth a stab, but there is not many active members and the active ones appear to be West Yorkshire or North Yorkshire inclined. You never know though some one may step forward. Keith D (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find sources for The Northern Theatre Company. It is listed as The Northern Theatre Co & School. It is a school of dance at Anlaby Road, the web link is dead.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the references you did find and add to article. Keith D (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the guidelines for writing about

talk

) 18:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

May be the sources used in

Yorkshire dialect and accent may go towards the Accents section but if nothing there fits then I think we may have to pull that section completely and just put the article mentioned in the See also section. Keith D (talk

) 19:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Lots of info hereto use as a source.Yippee.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Some History links 100 Year History of Kingston Communications 1904-2004 http://www.kcom.com/centenary/historyinwords/default.asp?NavID=3 Hull History Web http://www.hullwebs.co.uk/index.htm http://www.collectbritain.co.uk/dlo.cfm/unveiling/001COTAUGI00001U00085000.htm http://www.collectbritain.co.uk/dlo.cfm/unveiling/001COTAUGI00001U00083000.htm

The Healey Brothers seem pretty notability and are from Hull. Was surprise they don't have a page of their own. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/richlist/person/0,,37759,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.238.27 (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Hull editors,

I've been asked to take a look at this article to assess it for progress towards GA and ultimately FA. As such, I've been as brutal as I can possibly be here, but with the intention of being kind of course! Please don't be daunted, as the suggestions, though lengthy, are each quite minor. Overall, the use of citation is absolutely stunning, if not totally refreshing. There are no problems there and commend editors highly for that. Simillarly the photographs are stunning, proffesional and again, totally refreshing. The main issue here however seems to be lack of ultra-clear statements and background infomation. There are alot of statements lacking context. The weakest parts of the article are under Geography and Music.

My concerns/challenges are as follows:

1. The lead section appears both comprehensive and well referenced (which is good) but also a little short. Could this be expanded a little? I would expect to see at least another paragraph. See also
   WP:LEAD
   .
2. Kingston upon Hull is a
   unitary authority area
   (a territory) rather than a unitary authority (which is a council).  Done
3. 25 miles (40 km) from the North Sea - units should be linked on the first occation. Consider using {{convert|25|mi|km|0|lk=on}} as an alternative.  Done
4. Industrial giant might be better served by a change in words. Perhaps industrial metropolis or something simillar? Giant could be taken the wrong way.  Done
5. The first paragraph of the history section is a little jumbled and jumpy. Could I suggest a copyedit? I'm specifically thinking that rather saying "People have settled the area since at least the 12th century, with the founding between 1150 and 1179 of the Meaux Abbey." use something more like "The first evidence of human settlement in the area dates from the 12th century, as evidenced by X. Records show that Meaux Abbey, a X, was founded between 1150 and 1179." Done
6. On a simillar note to the above, is the earliest human activity (or settlement, which itself needs clarification) in the area really thought to be the 12th century? Surely there was neolithic, Celtic, Roman, Saxon etc activity?? If not, this itself is notable and should be mentioned, I believe. Done
7. Terms unfamilliar to a non-British or even non-English reader like "free borough", "charter" and "alderman" ought to be linked, for context.  Done - though no article to describe free borough so just linked to borough
8. "Another successful son of a trading family was bishop John Alcock, who founded Jesus College and was a patron of the grammar school in Hull." - needs something after Jesus College for context, say... "who founded Jesus College, of the University of Cambridge...".  Done
9. Why did John Hotham support Parliament and not Charles I? (imagine a Californian accent now...) Like, er, was there an argument between them or something? Doesn't, like, King Charles own his parliament? I so don't get it!... (end accent) I know what happened of course, but others won't I'm sure. Is there anything about how the normal townsfolk felt about this? Was Hotham pressurised or encouraged to do this? Done
10. City status needs linking to City status in the United Kingdom.  Done
11. I agree with the statements made in the last paragraph of History, but be mindful that there could be objections on the basis of POV.  Done
12. The geography section is a little thin. Could I recommend something more extensive, like that at Oldham#Geography? Things like co-ordinates, distance from other cities (London perhaps?), city size (area), land use, climate, the built environment, topography, housing stock, heavy infrastructure (rail lines, motorways) are all things which could be added to really improve comprehensiveness. this and this will help a little with this.
13. The subsections of Economy are not strictly needed. They could go without causing any harm.  Done
14. Some of Transport and infrastructure could go into Geography. I think the panorama (which I've only just spotted) isn't given justice too here and would also suggest moving that to Geography too. Terms like Northern England and List of motorways in the United Kingdom could be linked or piped where appropriate here.
15. "...is within one hour's drive of the city", definately needs converting to a unit of length.  Done
16. "Travellers in Hull have always suffered from delays" - needs addressing as "always" implies a very, very long time that predates the car.  Done - restructured & improved wikilinks
17. I think (and this is just my opinion) that Telephone system and Policing could be amalgamated into a Public services section (as recently recommended by
    WP:UKCITIES
    , following a discussion). Things like energy supplies, health care, water provision, waste management could then go here. - Added header & made 2 sections subsections as a first step here.
18. "Hull seems to be particularly attractive to poets" - looks like a breach of WP:NPOV.  Done - reword slightly
19. Popular music has some questionable statements, particularly things about up-and-coming bands and such.
20. I would rethink Accent and Reputation, perhaps merge these into Culture and History - Social history repectively? Certainly the unsourced baggage in these sections could, or rather should go.
21. "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." - needs clarification and sourcing.
22. There is a navigation template for the Hanseatic League, but it is itself unmentioned in the article. Perhaps something in the history section could be put together, even if just a sentence?  Done detail existed without saying the words so included note on this.
23. The notable people section is in list section which is generally discouraged. Perhaps tackle the issue like that done at Manchester or Oldham#Notable people, creating seperate lists?  Done switched to prose - first off stab - may be we need to create a List of people from Kingston upon Hull article to act as a summary.
24. What has just occured to me is the lack of
    Ashton under Lyne, Lyne or Newcastle upon Tyne
    , Tyne etc). It was something I was hoping to learn about, but alas, did not!

When I looked at the geography, it appeared that most of the topics were covered in other parts of the article under different headings eg economy, transport, demography, floods. Perhaps we could discuss how best to bring this together?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, nice to have you back around again, I had spotted you had been doing a few edits on rivers. I had moved the bits on flooding & earthquakes out of History into Geography as it seemed to fit better there with the climate bits. May be the climate sub-headings needs to go now to help the flow in that section.

I think if there is duplication then we need to try to pull the bits together, there is a couple of places where the St Stephen's development is mentioned that may need consolidating.

If you what to have a play at a restructure then give it a go, may be in a sand box, so we can see how it looks. Though we do not want to make some of the sections too short,

WP:UKCITIES should give some pointers as to what should be in what section, also see comments from peer review above. Keith D (talk

) 18:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the climate section and I'll do a couple of sentences about geology and topology. Looking at the order of the sections, I thought that the Transport and infrastructure could come after Demography and Public services after Economy. Regeneration might be better after Public services (they seem to be about the same type of thing).The rest then flows more easily. As for sources for accent, I really can't think of how to validate this. I know it is true but how do we prove it Done!?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this sentence from the history section

The town was acquired from the abbey by

might deal with point 24.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Much of the popular music information can be verified by reference to advertisements and such like (pubs,clubs,newspaper adverts online etc.) but it is questionable how stable they would be as web sources.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See User:Harkey Lodger/Hull for revised order of sections. Please feel free to experiment with improvements.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Revised order now in "live page". The above message no longer applies.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think, maybe, the lead section needs to be expanded Done to provide a better summary, then thorough copyedit for typos, etc. (I'll do this later today.) Done Then what? Go for it?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Would also remove the references required tags. Done There are 2 references missing in the people section John Alderton & Paul Heaton who I could not locate a suitable reference for, may be replace them with someone else if cannot get references. Also last reference in lead (ref 8 I think) is dead as the site has restructured and I could not find the right page for it. Done When done I suggest asking Jza84 if he is happy as he did the peer review then going for it. It can take about a month so gives us time to do any final tweaks.

Just a comment on your 1941 census note - would it be better as a note under the table done as per notes on table under Economy Done? If you go for that I suggest a note on 2001 census box indicating 6 discrepancy between this source & the one at start of section. Done

Keith D (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done's added--Harkey Lodger (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks well on Opera, Safari, Firefox and Internet Explorer. Only the EL to the photographic archive is playing up. It keeps timing out.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been problems with the site for a few weeks, I think they are working on it. Last time they had problems it resulted in a reconfigure of the site address so I would leave that one for now. I was thinking we need to trim down, for example the Princes Quay one is in the references section. Keith D (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Official Tourism information for Hull - not really necessary

Holy Trinity Church - good info but watermark in background confuses me

Hull City Council - overwhelming!!

Hull City Council photo archive - times out

Hull Daily Mail - not necessary, there is an article about the paper with a link

Hull Philharmonic Youth Orchestra - already in refs

East Yorkshire Motor Services Brass Band -

Hull York Medical School - not necessary

"The Humber Mouth" - Hull Literature Festival

Photographs of modern and historic features in Kingston upon Hull - underwhelming!!

Prince's Quay (shopping centre)- a bit sameish

Quay West Project - a bit sameish

Skyscrapercity: Developments for Kingston-Upon-Hull. Urban discussion forum dedicated to new development and regeneration - fantastic images

St Stephens Project - a bit sameish

The University of Hull - er well!

Kingston upon Hull travel guide from Wikitravel - has useful information

--Harkey Lodger (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been rather ruthless with these and cut most of them, if you think I have over done it put some back in. PamD as indicated on my talk page that there is a reference for John Alderton in Who's Who 2007 but my library does not have online access to get details for reference. Do you have access? The other problematic reference is the environment agency one for the tidal barrier detail as you need a password now to get in.

I have been through with a copy-edit and think that we are ready now, though I may have missed things, especially towards the end. May have another look at the tail end with a fresh pair of eyes some other time. Keith D (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ref for Paul Heaton

Beautiful South. (2001). In The Faber Companion to 20th Century Popular Music. Retrieved April 25, 2008, from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/4411719

Now I'll try John Alderton --Harkey Lodger (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither York nor North Yorkshire Libraries subscribe to online Who's Who.No luck.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I found and added a BBC reference, then while copy-editing found that the reference was already in another section so I combined them. Rather a waste of time! You can add another though as it improves the verifiability of the information. Keith D (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm back for another round, but think I'll be beaten back on this one! I have the following tiny challenges:

• In the first paragraph of History, can we define "recent" in terms of a decade, at least? Done
• Under history, I'm a bit worried about the phrase "might have had an unfortunate consequence" in terms of uber-neutrality. Perhaps something more like "has been suggested to have introduced syphilis... etc", removing the "mights" and "unfortunates". Done
• In Governance, could anything be found about a Poor law union, Sanitary district and/or Local board of health for Hull? It wouldn't be a barrier to GA, it would just complete the thoroughness of the article when we go for FA. Simillarly, is there anything about Hulls MPs from a historical perpective? First MP, or a notable MP perhaps? Done
• As the last point, could anything be said about the social class of Hull? Not a GA condition, more of a longer term FA goal.
• The first and last paragraphs in Transport are unreferenced, but should be easy to fix.
• Bit worried about the last paragraph of Popular music.
• Under Geography, any chance of mentioning the names of Hull's divisions, suburbs and localities? These can be really (if not surprisingly) helpful to genealogists. It would be great to use them as a springboard about local housing stock too, which is notable by its absence! Done

That's it for now! The latter parts of the Culture section are the weakest area, but other than that, it's a great article. It's a thumbs up for me in terms of GA. Hope that helps guys, --Jza84 |  Talk  01:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have an outline map of Hull which I will work on today to show divisions and development of the city.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Didn't actually say that William Wilberforce was MP for Hull.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 10:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I did add a list of the wards to the Hull City Council article recently which it may be best to give rather than vague area names which are often disputed. One of the pink maps of the wards, with numbers, would be a start, which could go here or on the council article. Keith D (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this

The parishes of Drypool, Marfleet, and Sculcoates, and most of Sutton parish, have been absorbed within the borough of Hull in the 19th and 20th centuries. Much of their area has been built over, and socially and economically they have long been inseparable from the city. Sutton alone retained a recognizable village centre in the 1960s, but on the south and east the advancing suburbs had already reached it.

The four villages were, nevertheless, distinct communities, of a largely rural character, until their absorption in the borough—Drypool and Sculcoates in 1837, Marfleet in 1882, and Sutton in 1929.

here

Will it help?--Harkey Lodger (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC) --Harkey Lodger (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a great quote; it says alot about the development of Hull. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also done this map Image:Hull map.jpg to mark places on if it's OK--Harkey Lodger (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just added a map and quote. It may need tweaking a bit now, though.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I tweaked the image size & moved map down slightly to avoid the squeeze of text. But cannot seem to get the quote to show up as it should, may be it does not like going to the right of an image. Cannot reverse the images as that would leave an image at start of section which they do not want. Keith D (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think, just go for it, now. As you said before, there is time to tweak.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I say go for GAC now! It's a great article. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I have gone and done it - now sit back and see what happens. Keith D (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

These points:

• "local housing stock too, which is notable by its absence"
• "could anything be said about the social class of Hull?"
• In Governance, could anything be found about a Poor law union, Sanitary district and/or Local board of health for Hull?

are best left to FA as they are complicated areas which are not amenable to a summary in an article of this length. This is particularly so with the history governance, as there were various bodies governing the port, trade, the town, water supply, etc.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a to-do box and placed these in it. This is intended for things to do following GA review. Keith D (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.