![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The Good article nomination for London/Archive 4 has failed for the following reason:
Category:Former good article nominees
At 72 kilobytes it is well over twice as big as the recommendation at the Wikipedia:Article size style guide. While we would expect key Wikipedia articles like London to be longer than average (and certainly larger than 32 kilobytes) is 72 kilobytes not pushing the boat out just a bit too far? -- Mais oui! 10:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The statement near the top of the article is that 17.5% of the GDP of the UK is generated by London, whereas another statement much lower down in the article says that it is 19%.
Having tried to look up these figures for citation, there are numerous possibilities which often contradict each other. The Corporation of London says "over 18% of GDP", whilst the Association of London Government says (on page 12) 21% in the year 2000. The London Chamber of Commerce says 17% (no year given). The Economist says "some 20%".
In the absence of a clear and official figure, we could use GVA instead (which is GDP - taxes + subsidies, and is apparently often equivalent to quote GDP figures as it is "GDP at basic prices" - though I'm not an economist so I don't understand it entirely), it's easier to get official, recent figures, because this is the measure required by the EU and produced by the National Statistics office. The most recent of those is here which says 16.4%.
Dave A 20:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The line "London also has the largest Hindu population outside of India." seems a little ambigious, does it mean that London as a city has more Hindus than any other city outside India, as surely Nepal has a much greater Hindu population than London, maybe "London also has the largest Hindu population of any city outside of India" would be better
My main impression of this article is that it's bloated. Obviously there is an awful lot to say about London, and the information on this page is generally very good, but I think that some bits could be farmed out to sub-articles, and that the general flow of the article is disjointed, in the way that the sections are arranged.
I've noticed that the size has been brought up before, and each time some bits are taken off to other pages. I propose a further streamlining that makes this main article a bit more readable.
The main culprit, in my opinion, is the "districts of London" section which takes up so much space even though each area has its own sub-article.
I think a good comparison is the Paris article, which has 12 sections compared to the 19 here (and only 8 "proper" headings, i.e. excluding the references etc, compared to 16 here!). The Paris article divides into these areas:
I'd propose reorganising this article in a similar way, perhaps retaining the Defining London section (which is fairly unique to London) in lieu of the Paris article's "name" section and various other difference (see below).
The Modern London section seems rather out of place - I propose merging the first paragraph of that into the introduction (which also seems to contain a lot of fluff - it reads like a tourist brochure, with statements like "it has many important buildings and iconic landmarks..." which probably apply to lots of other cities too), and ditching the second paragraph in favour of a replaced section on tourist attractions later on in the article.
Not quite sure what to do with the London districts section - people obviously place a lot of importance on it so I'd say maybe leave it in and streamline it as far as possible.
Government and Business & economy seem too important in their own right (and unrelated) to simply be part of Demographics, so I propose sectioning them as their own headings similar to the Paris Economy and Administration headings.
Transport and infrastructure looks OK, but the remainder of the London headings are all over the place. I propose a new master headings of Society & culture and Tourism, with the current Tourist attractions section rewritten prosaically rather than as a long, boring list, and the current headings of Education, Style & fashion, Sport, Religion and London in the arts moved under Society & culture as sub-headings. I also propose to either move media and technology into the earlier Business and economy section, or to give it its own page entirely, as the information is useful but perhaps too detailed for here.
I think that if we streamline the article in this way, it might stand a better chance of getting " good article" (or even featured) status.
Of course I invite comments on any aspect of these proposals. I've outlined the layout I propose here. -- Dave A 22:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Good call on the London districts edit - I think it's much more appropriate now. I've eliminated the Modern London section as I proposed, moving information mainly to the Defining London and Tourist attractions sections, with some other bits scattered into the new districts section and the business & economy section. The result for the tourist attractions section is a bit messy - introductory prose followed by a list - but hopefully this can be fleshed out in due course. -- Dave A 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Still needs some work and further rationalisation. However, in the meantime, someone disliked my edit of the introduction and has reverted it to the previous version ( 80.41.163.50) - I'd like a discussion of why from the editor... I think the slimmer version I created was much more in line with WP:LEAD. -- Dave A 21:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Two things I've noted:
-- Dave A 18:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
the references section is so long as to act as nothing more than a link farm. Its ridiculous.
The London Monarchs was mentioned in the sports section at one time and now it isn't. This article should show that London had a national American Football team from 1991 - 1998. And don't forget Scottish Claymores from 1996 - 2004. Renegadeviking
Have fun even trying to disambiguate the word football in this article. Soccer fans are extremely fanatical and parochial. Factoid Killer 20:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The reference for my addition is List_of_twin_towns_and_sister_cities#India. Confirm and add if convinced. - Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 13:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes I know that a wiki article doesn't count as reference. The logic of my addition was that omission is more likely than vandalism. Anyway adding the link will definitely fix the page with error (this case it looks that the List of twin towns one was at fault). - Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be good to get London moving towards good or featured article status once again. Does anyone have any thoughts about how this might be achieved? -- Dave A 17:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn´t have an infobox on the right. This is standard requirement for every city page in almost every language... User:Sashandre
the article mention that Paris is a sister city of London. This is false. Paris have only one sister city : Roma (since 1956). The others (like London since 2001) are only partnerships. See the french article about Paris. 84.99.239.234 04:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
This section has appeared recently and, to me, seems very unnecessary at a time we are trying to cut back the size of the article and smooth out its flaws. I don't think that when people come to read an encyclopedia article about London, they want a list of uncompleted tall buildings - especially when there is already a Tall buildings in London article. I would like to delete this section entirely but it seems to keep reappearing. This deletion was also suggested in the peer review (which is hardly surprising as the section didn't exist when the peer review was initiated). Whoever has objections to this deletion, please could they state them here? Thanks. -- Dave A 14:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
As all can see, an infobox has been added as per suggestions in Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive2. Although this brings London into line with articles for almost all other cities, I can't help feeling that it is ineffective for London. Compare the London infobox with that of New York City. London has no coat of arms, no flag, no nickname, no official metropolitan area... all the little pieces of information that an infobox is designed to contain cannot be used for London because either they don't exist, or they are unofficial and therefore open up a can of worms as to their definition.
Furthermore, the "London" described in this article is more a general overview of all the things that come under the general term of "London"... the only context in which "London" is an official term is as one of the nine regions of England - this is covered by the Greater London article.
Once all this is done, all that is left for the infobox is information that is either stupendously obvious (such as "United Kingdom") or already mentioned at the top of the page (co-ordinates) or information that requires further reading in order to be understood anyway!
Long story short - I don't think the infobox, in its current form, does justice to the article or to London. However, I'm at a loss as to how it can be improved. DJR ( Talk) 19:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Shall we use a different one? Skinnyweed 00:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Why doesn't the article mention the Ashes series? Surely it should. After all, the Ashes must be a commonly watched cricet series in England and it is wrong to not mention it.
Speaking as Londoner, I found this section confusing and I doubt if all the information - particularly the historical information - is necessary in this article. Most of it would be better placed in articles about the administration or transport history of London. All that seems necessary here is to flag up the fact that 'London' is not a very clearly defined entity and point the reader in useful directions to find other information. I'd suggest replacing the entire first four paragraphs with something like this (suitably wikified, of course)–
Since that's a fairly drastic cut, I thought I'd see what people thought before diving in. The London link on the English Regions page just goes to "Greater London" anyway, so I thought that nuance could probably be skipped over in this article. The fact that Greater London is divided into boroughs is mentioned in the Government section and of course on the Greater London page. The stuff about the County of London can be found elsewhere; whether there needs to be a single page called something like "History of London government" as a first point of call I don't know, but I don't think it needs to be here. Anyway, you get the idea. Harry R 23:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
User:24.64.223.203 said: A food section is needed in the Society and Culture section. I've moved the request here. Lupin| talk| popups 02:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I am looking for London rollercoaster where I can get a photo thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.85.85 ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be part of WikiProject London? Simply south 16:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I am far from convinced about the removal of the Tourism section to a sub-article. Unfortunately the user involved ( User_talk:Jackp) characteristically seems unwilling to discuss the change before making it.
I don't think the change is necessary. The section had been cut down to a few concise paragraphs, it's a relevant section to contain within the main article (as long as it is short) as tourism is so important in London. I don't mind there being a sub-article (if it contains more information than it currently does) but I object to the complete removal of nearly all references to tourism from the main article. I'd like to know what anyone else thinks. -- Dave A 09:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this section should be merged into it's own article...or added into the econamy section, because it's really not relevant, and Wikipeda isn't a travel guide. Jackp 11:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I can explain Jack’s action. Jack has no great concern for the content of the London article. Rather, his deletion of the tourism section and other comments talking of London’s global influence simply is a reaction to him not being able to fill the page on his native
Sydney with hyped POV tourism promotion. His thinking seems to have been, if the Sydney article can’t read like a tourist brochure, then I will remove the tourism sections from
London,
Paris,
New York and
Melbourne. Have a look for yourself. He has been hounded to stop making the article into a tourist brochure (or property development prospectus) but instead keep it as an encyclopaedia. .--
Merbabu
05:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, you know how every city has a poor part where crime and poverty skyrockets and really crappy flats are for like, £23 a week? Well, I wanna know where that is in London? I know that it's probably on the East End, but what's the name of the neighborhood. Jim Bart
I have nominated London as a good article as I think significant progress has been made with it since the last nomination. We'll see what happens! -- Dave A 22:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It's under "Long articles" as it's over 25kb. -- Dave A 11:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
London#Economy London is the world's most popular city destination for tourists, attracting 27m overnight-stay visitors every year.[10]
Paris is the most visited city in the world,[1] with more than 30 million visitors per year.
Twice already today the photo in the infobox has been replace (by User:Miguellarios/ User:71.80.186.30). I think it's fairly safe to say the existing photo is the better of the two - far clearer and properly exposed - and it should be kept. The existing photo is being used under a free-licence (PD), so there is no license reason to replace it with another. Thanks/ wangi 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This article looks to be an excellent overview of a huge topic, well done to all those involved. The issues mentioned in the earlier rejection of this article as a GA have all been addressed: the districts, tourism and parades sections all look reasonable to me, and the article is now only 50 kB! I would suggest that the next step would be to submit this for peer review, and then go for WP:FAC. Nice job. Walkerma 04:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Discussion continues at Archive 5...
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The Good article nomination for London/Archive 4 has failed for the following reason:
Category:Former good article nominees
At 72 kilobytes it is well over twice as big as the recommendation at the Wikipedia:Article size style guide. While we would expect key Wikipedia articles like London to be longer than average (and certainly larger than 32 kilobytes) is 72 kilobytes not pushing the boat out just a bit too far? -- Mais oui! 10:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The statement near the top of the article is that 17.5% of the GDP of the UK is generated by London, whereas another statement much lower down in the article says that it is 19%.
Having tried to look up these figures for citation, there are numerous possibilities which often contradict each other. The Corporation of London says "over 18% of GDP", whilst the Association of London Government says (on page 12) 21% in the year 2000. The London Chamber of Commerce says 17% (no year given). The Economist says "some 20%".
In the absence of a clear and official figure, we could use GVA instead (which is GDP - taxes + subsidies, and is apparently often equivalent to quote GDP figures as it is "GDP at basic prices" - though I'm not an economist so I don't understand it entirely), it's easier to get official, recent figures, because this is the measure required by the EU and produced by the National Statistics office. The most recent of those is here which says 16.4%.
Dave A 20:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The line "London also has the largest Hindu population outside of India." seems a little ambigious, does it mean that London as a city has more Hindus than any other city outside India, as surely Nepal has a much greater Hindu population than London, maybe "London also has the largest Hindu population of any city outside of India" would be better
My main impression of this article is that it's bloated. Obviously there is an awful lot to say about London, and the information on this page is generally very good, but I think that some bits could be farmed out to sub-articles, and that the general flow of the article is disjointed, in the way that the sections are arranged.
I've noticed that the size has been brought up before, and each time some bits are taken off to other pages. I propose a further streamlining that makes this main article a bit more readable.
The main culprit, in my opinion, is the "districts of London" section which takes up so much space even though each area has its own sub-article.
I think a good comparison is the Paris article, which has 12 sections compared to the 19 here (and only 8 "proper" headings, i.e. excluding the references etc, compared to 16 here!). The Paris article divides into these areas:
I'd propose reorganising this article in a similar way, perhaps retaining the Defining London section (which is fairly unique to London) in lieu of the Paris article's "name" section and various other difference (see below).
The Modern London section seems rather out of place - I propose merging the first paragraph of that into the introduction (which also seems to contain a lot of fluff - it reads like a tourist brochure, with statements like "it has many important buildings and iconic landmarks..." which probably apply to lots of other cities too), and ditching the second paragraph in favour of a replaced section on tourist attractions later on in the article.
Not quite sure what to do with the London districts section - people obviously place a lot of importance on it so I'd say maybe leave it in and streamline it as far as possible.
Government and Business & economy seem too important in their own right (and unrelated) to simply be part of Demographics, so I propose sectioning them as their own headings similar to the Paris Economy and Administration headings.
Transport and infrastructure looks OK, but the remainder of the London headings are all over the place. I propose a new master headings of Society & culture and Tourism, with the current Tourist attractions section rewritten prosaically rather than as a long, boring list, and the current headings of Education, Style & fashion, Sport, Religion and London in the arts moved under Society & culture as sub-headings. I also propose to either move media and technology into the earlier Business and economy section, or to give it its own page entirely, as the information is useful but perhaps too detailed for here.
I think that if we streamline the article in this way, it might stand a better chance of getting " good article" (or even featured) status.
Of course I invite comments on any aspect of these proposals. I've outlined the layout I propose here. -- Dave A 22:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Good call on the London districts edit - I think it's much more appropriate now. I've eliminated the Modern London section as I proposed, moving information mainly to the Defining London and Tourist attractions sections, with some other bits scattered into the new districts section and the business & economy section. The result for the tourist attractions section is a bit messy - introductory prose followed by a list - but hopefully this can be fleshed out in due course. -- Dave A 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Still needs some work and further rationalisation. However, in the meantime, someone disliked my edit of the introduction and has reverted it to the previous version ( 80.41.163.50) - I'd like a discussion of why from the editor... I think the slimmer version I created was much more in line with WP:LEAD. -- Dave A 21:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Two things I've noted:
-- Dave A 18:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
the references section is so long as to act as nothing more than a link farm. Its ridiculous.
The London Monarchs was mentioned in the sports section at one time and now it isn't. This article should show that London had a national American Football team from 1991 - 1998. And don't forget Scottish Claymores from 1996 - 2004. Renegadeviking
Have fun even trying to disambiguate the word football in this article. Soccer fans are extremely fanatical and parochial. Factoid Killer 20:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The reference for my addition is List_of_twin_towns_and_sister_cities#India. Confirm and add if convinced. - Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 13:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes I know that a wiki article doesn't count as reference. The logic of my addition was that omission is more likely than vandalism. Anyway adding the link will definitely fix the page with error (this case it looks that the List of twin towns one was at fault). - Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be good to get London moving towards good or featured article status once again. Does anyone have any thoughts about how this might be achieved? -- Dave A 17:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn´t have an infobox on the right. This is standard requirement for every city page in almost every language... User:Sashandre
the article mention that Paris is a sister city of London. This is false. Paris have only one sister city : Roma (since 1956). The others (like London since 2001) are only partnerships. See the french article about Paris. 84.99.239.234 04:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
This section has appeared recently and, to me, seems very unnecessary at a time we are trying to cut back the size of the article and smooth out its flaws. I don't think that when people come to read an encyclopedia article about London, they want a list of uncompleted tall buildings - especially when there is already a Tall buildings in London article. I would like to delete this section entirely but it seems to keep reappearing. This deletion was also suggested in the peer review (which is hardly surprising as the section didn't exist when the peer review was initiated). Whoever has objections to this deletion, please could they state them here? Thanks. -- Dave A 14:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
As all can see, an infobox has been added as per suggestions in Wikipedia:Peer review/London/archive2. Although this brings London into line with articles for almost all other cities, I can't help feeling that it is ineffective for London. Compare the London infobox with that of New York City. London has no coat of arms, no flag, no nickname, no official metropolitan area... all the little pieces of information that an infobox is designed to contain cannot be used for London because either they don't exist, or they are unofficial and therefore open up a can of worms as to their definition.
Furthermore, the "London" described in this article is more a general overview of all the things that come under the general term of "London"... the only context in which "London" is an official term is as one of the nine regions of England - this is covered by the Greater London article.
Once all this is done, all that is left for the infobox is information that is either stupendously obvious (such as "United Kingdom") or already mentioned at the top of the page (co-ordinates) or information that requires further reading in order to be understood anyway!
Long story short - I don't think the infobox, in its current form, does justice to the article or to London. However, I'm at a loss as to how it can be improved. DJR ( Talk) 19:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Shall we use a different one? Skinnyweed 00:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Why doesn't the article mention the Ashes series? Surely it should. After all, the Ashes must be a commonly watched cricet series in England and it is wrong to not mention it.
Speaking as Londoner, I found this section confusing and I doubt if all the information - particularly the historical information - is necessary in this article. Most of it would be better placed in articles about the administration or transport history of London. All that seems necessary here is to flag up the fact that 'London' is not a very clearly defined entity and point the reader in useful directions to find other information. I'd suggest replacing the entire first four paragraphs with something like this (suitably wikified, of course)–
Since that's a fairly drastic cut, I thought I'd see what people thought before diving in. The London link on the English Regions page just goes to "Greater London" anyway, so I thought that nuance could probably be skipped over in this article. The fact that Greater London is divided into boroughs is mentioned in the Government section and of course on the Greater London page. The stuff about the County of London can be found elsewhere; whether there needs to be a single page called something like "History of London government" as a first point of call I don't know, but I don't think it needs to be here. Anyway, you get the idea. Harry R 23:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
User:24.64.223.203 said: A food section is needed in the Society and Culture section. I've moved the request here. Lupin| talk| popups 02:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I am looking for London rollercoaster where I can get a photo thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.85.85 ( talk • contribs) 21:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be part of WikiProject London? Simply south 16:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I am far from convinced about the removal of the Tourism section to a sub-article. Unfortunately the user involved ( User_talk:Jackp) characteristically seems unwilling to discuss the change before making it.
I don't think the change is necessary. The section had been cut down to a few concise paragraphs, it's a relevant section to contain within the main article (as long as it is short) as tourism is so important in London. I don't mind there being a sub-article (if it contains more information than it currently does) but I object to the complete removal of nearly all references to tourism from the main article. I'd like to know what anyone else thinks. -- Dave A 09:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this section should be merged into it's own article...or added into the econamy section, because it's really not relevant, and Wikipeda isn't a travel guide. Jackp 11:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I can explain Jack’s action. Jack has no great concern for the content of the London article. Rather, his deletion of the tourism section and other comments talking of London’s global influence simply is a reaction to him not being able to fill the page on his native
Sydney with hyped POV tourism promotion. His thinking seems to have been, if the Sydney article can’t read like a tourist brochure, then I will remove the tourism sections from
London,
Paris,
New York and
Melbourne. Have a look for yourself. He has been hounded to stop making the article into a tourist brochure (or property development prospectus) but instead keep it as an encyclopaedia. .--
Merbabu
05:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, you know how every city has a poor part where crime and poverty skyrockets and really crappy flats are for like, £23 a week? Well, I wanna know where that is in London? I know that it's probably on the East End, but what's the name of the neighborhood. Jim Bart
I have nominated London as a good article as I think significant progress has been made with it since the last nomination. We'll see what happens! -- Dave A 22:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It's under "Long articles" as it's over 25kb. -- Dave A 11:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
London#Economy London is the world's most popular city destination for tourists, attracting 27m overnight-stay visitors every year.[10]
Paris is the most visited city in the world,[1] with more than 30 million visitors per year.
Twice already today the photo in the infobox has been replace (by User:Miguellarios/ User:71.80.186.30). I think it's fairly safe to say the existing photo is the better of the two - far clearer and properly exposed - and it should be kept. The existing photo is being used under a free-licence (PD), so there is no license reason to replace it with another. Thanks/ wangi 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This article looks to be an excellent overview of a huge topic, well done to all those involved. The issues mentioned in the earlier rejection of this article as a GA have all been addressed: the districts, tourism and parades sections all look reasonable to me, and the article is now only 50 kB! I would suggest that the next step would be to submit this for peer review, and then go for WP:FAC. Nice job. Walkerma 04:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Discussion continues at Archive 5...