Talk:Notting Hill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Collaboration on turning this into a Good article[edit]

I would be interested in working this article up to GA status. I place the criteria for GA here, and people can work towards each criteria and then tick them off. SilkTork *YES! 17:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a good article?[edit]

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[2]
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ a b In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Comments[edit]

1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notting Hill name[edit]

I once saw a very old ordinance survey map where Notting Hill was called "Noding Hill"

Pauline Jackson 30 July 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.195.143 (talk) 10:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Caribbean immigrants were drawn to the area in the 1950s, partly because of the dubious practices followed by the landlord Peter Rachman,"[edit]

Clarification required on this sentence. What 'dubious practises' is the author referring to? What precisely was the connection between Rachman's activities and Carribean immigrants? 195.112.55.34 (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'New Crossrail Station'[edit]

This section reads like campaigning material; I question whether it's really appropriate for the page. Ref WP:SOAP and WP:BALL ---- 86.1.64.115 (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Notting Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Notting Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Impact[edit]

The figure of £93 million is based on a multiplier applied to a direct figure of £45m direct benefits. I question this. The multiplier is drawn from the British arts Festivals association who are not a disinterested source and it is only applied to benefits not to costs. All the stall holders along Portobello Road are closed down & replaced by other stalls selling - almost without exception - barbecued food, yet this is might be seen as a neutral economic effect. I would also suggest that it is unlikely that more casual traders pay the same rate of taxes (if any) that the regular stalls might pay. Householders pay upto £400 to have their properties boarded up. Obviously this creates profit for builders (plus the "multiplier") but the householder experiences this as a loss which cannot even be claimed on insurance, as a burglary would. In which case an economic argument could be made for the positive effects of burglary or theft. In 2015 Boris Johnson said that 407 arrests (which seems likely to have been exceeded in 2016) was unacceptable - but has to be seen in context of "£93m benefits." In other words it IS acceptable due to this oft quoted figure. 02:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC).-Streona (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]