![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Williams Landing Railway Station.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC) |
I have concerns about this section of the article as I believe edits made by Netmapper & User:124.180.208.173 do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality. The section reads as follows: 'With such high cost, the train station lacks some basic features. It has no fully covered roofing and only one lift. When it's raining, the condition for passengers is quite bad. The Princes Highway crossing on the southern part of the station usually very windy and very noisy. The construction of the station lacks consultations with local residents.'. My main concern is that this is merely the personal opinion of the editors. There are no facts or references from credible sources to substantiate their claims. What is written is completely subjective and may not represent the views of all of the commuters who actually use the station. For these reasons I believe that this section does not meet Wikipedia's neutrality policy, especially as this section states opinions as facts. Furthermore I believe that the opinions stated do not meet the guideline stated here in regards to asserting opinions. I therefore recommend that this section be amended or removed. Thebusofdoom ( talk) 11:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be a candidate for a fairly straightforward application of WP:V: the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If the matters Netmapper seeks to include have been mentioned in reliable sources, then it may be appropriate to include them (most likely provided they're attributed statements rather than plain statements of fact, and only if they can be included without violating WP:UNDUE). That something is factual is fairly meaningless from a Wikipedia standpoint: we have articles on all sorts of fictional topics, as well as on hoaxes and pseudoscientific topics. As an aside, I haven't looked at and won't be looking at the material itself. What I've said here applies regardless of what the material is. It's a simple matter of Wikipedia policy. From the arguments you're making Netmapper, your position seems not to be in conformance with policy. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 03:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Williams Landing Railway Station.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC) |
I have concerns about this section of the article as I believe edits made by Netmapper & User:124.180.208.173 do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality. The section reads as follows: 'With such high cost, the train station lacks some basic features. It has no fully covered roofing and only one lift. When it's raining, the condition for passengers is quite bad. The Princes Highway crossing on the southern part of the station usually very windy and very noisy. The construction of the station lacks consultations with local residents.'. My main concern is that this is merely the personal opinion of the editors. There are no facts or references from credible sources to substantiate their claims. What is written is completely subjective and may not represent the views of all of the commuters who actually use the station. For these reasons I believe that this section does not meet Wikipedia's neutrality policy, especially as this section states opinions as facts. Furthermore I believe that the opinions stated do not meet the guideline stated here in regards to asserting opinions. I therefore recommend that this section be amended or removed. Thebusofdoom ( talk) 11:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be a candidate for a fairly straightforward application of WP:V: the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If the matters Netmapper seeks to include have been mentioned in reliable sources, then it may be appropriate to include them (most likely provided they're attributed statements rather than plain statements of fact, and only if they can be included without violating WP:UNDUE). That something is factual is fairly meaningless from a Wikipedia standpoint: we have articles on all sorts of fictional topics, as well as on hoaxes and pseudoscientific topics. As an aside, I haven't looked at and won't be looking at the material itself. What I've said here applies regardless of what the material is. It's a simple matter of Wikipedia policy. From the arguments you're making Netmapper, your position seems not to be in conformance with policy. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 03:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)