Talk:Haden Hill Park

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Personal note

I have written this article, more or less from scratch, as a tribute to my father Gerald Price MBE, (1927-2020). He lived with his parents and four brothers in Barrs Road, opposite the park for most of the first 25 years of his life. Haden Hill Park and Old Hill Cricket Club were places of magic and wonder for him, forming the backdrop and playground of a happy and fulfilled childhood. I hope this article goes somewhere near doing justice to this wonderful facility which I am sure will be enjoyed for many generations more.

Please improve it if you can, please though, do so carefully.

John Price (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pricejb - Arrived here quite by chance. A few observations:

The style is not summary as it contains a lot of minor detail, often expressed in a POV way;
Sections are completely unsourced, e.g. Myths;
The biggest issue is the sourcing. There are two main sources, 1 and 5, accounting for 27 of the 32 cites. 1 looks to be self-published (?) and 5, by the same author as 1, is a YouTube video which is expressly not acceptable as a reliable source. In short, what I think we have is an article sourced almost entirely by reference to the work of an amateur local historian.

I apologise if the above is discouraging. But there are dangers in writing a memorial article. Personally, I would suggest substantial trimming and digging out a wider range of reliable sources. KJP1 (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a memorial article at all, it is not about an individual. And YouTube is permitted if there is no copyright issue see - Wikipedia:Video links - in this case it is a professionally produced video especially for YouTube. You are right is saying it is hosted by a local historian - I think that is OK, he has studied his subject and come up with an authoritative account.John Price (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is a memorial article, as you expressly state at the top of this page - “a tribute to my father”. My concerns regarding objectivity/sourcing/level of detail remain. KJP1 (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial articles are articles which memorialise "deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." ie the expression refers to the content of the article been a kind of obituary and this article is not that at all. The park is an important local facility, it has been there for nearly 100 years, huge numbers of people have visited it, it has won awards - it is the proper subject of an article. My motives for upgrading it are not the point.

The article was awful before I upgraded it, absolutely pathetic: no sources, inaccurate, masses of missing information, the lot. You didn't worry then. Your complaint that the book on the park has not been peer reviewed, is astonishing - it was jointly authored for one thing, how do you know what process it went through? Why should it not be accurate? I had no idea that contributors to Wikipedia had not just to produce a source, but to find out what peer review process the source went through prior to publication. If that really was the basis for Wikipedia, about half the content would disappear.John Price (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book appears to be self-published, [1], which would suggest that it’s not been peer-reviewed, and its authors appear to be local enthusiasts, not professional historians. Ditto for the Youtube. And that’s the issue. I would suggest neither would qualify as Wikipedia: Reliable sources and yet they provide almost the entirety of the sourcing. As to whether it constitutes a memorial page, we will have to disagree. I think it definitely is, and it is very weakly-sourced making much of it unsuitable for Wikipedia. KJP1 (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You think it is a memorial page as defined by Wikipedia. Great. You provided the link to the definition of a memorial page and this article, to me, obviously does not meet the definition that applies. You just say we have to disagree? You think you can get away with not addressing the points I make above? I think not; please justify your opinion in the context of the published definition, or admit you got it wrong.

Reliable sources? Wikipedia says "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content" Please be realistic and sensible - the information in this article is not contentious or implausible, it is not prejudicial to any person or idea, there is nothing here that is worthy of dispute. It is precisely the kind of information that a local historians can be expected to offer a sound source. The context of the information provided should lead anyone to a balanced judgement that there is no reason to call it into question. What effort are you making to weigh the type of information in the article against the source that provides it?

My plea to you is this - back off; stop trying to create a dispute out of thin air. Concentrate on articles which are the subject of meaningful contention, not a straightforward, properly sourced account of a working-class leisure facility. John Price (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to remove unsourced/improperly sourced material, and material that does not follow our Summary style, here and elsewhere. KJP1 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is obviously NOT a memorial page as defined by Wikipedia. The author's father to whom the author dedicates the article is not mentioned in the article itself. The author merely mentioned his dedication on this Talk Page which isn't part of the encyclopedia. What's wrong with that? Nice gesture, I think. Rupples (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon most local history books are written by "amateur local historians". Many of these texts are cited on Wikipedia. Does it matter if the author is an amateur or professional so long as the text is properly researched and sourced? "Local enthusiast" - again what's wrong with that? Surely, one has to have interest and enthusiasm in the subject matter to bother writing about it? Having said that, I haven't read the book in question so I'm unable to judge whether it is well researched or not. Rupples (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect there is quite a lot we wouldn’t agree on, including the above. KJP1 (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do agree with the deletions you made to the article. Rupples (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Haden Hill Sons of Rest.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Haden Hill Sons of Rest.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Too long

This, already over-long, article is getting longer yet, mainly sourced to old newspapers. Does it really need an entire sub-section for a single sentence on whippet racing? KJP1 (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KJP1. Glad to see you're still taking an interest in the article. Hoped you'd drop by with some criticism. I agree, whippet racing doesn't need a separate section but I do think the article needs a paragraph on the uses to which the park has been put over the years, so I intend to merge it in with brief details of other uses/events. It is illustrative of how public use of the park has changed over time and is a reflection of Black Country culture of that era.

I've used newspapers to mainly verify facts already in the article, some of which were unsourced and inaccurate, in response to the request made in the template at the top of the article for a wider range of sourcing. Rupples (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree a section on Usage, historic and current, would be appropriate. I just dislike single-sentence paragraphs, let alone single-sentence sections. As an example, Chippenham Mead covers the horse racing that was a major activity in the 18th/19th centuries, but doesn’t have a separate section on it. I’d also recommend merging in other very short sections, bowl/pool/pet graves etc. etc. All the best. 14:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

All looking good! KJP1 (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good indeed, I don't think the multiple issues remain. Thanks John Price (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Supyovalk - Criterion 1 for B-Class, states: "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources..." The top two sources for this article, accounting for a total of 28 cites are:

A self-published book by two local enthusiasts. There is no indication that the authors are expert in their fields, or that the book was subject to editorial oversight/peer review;
A YouTube video by one the the two enthusiasts who authored the above.

I would appreciate some more detail on how you think these sources meet Criterion 1. KJP1 (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Use the Evad37's Rater and it's supplied ORES Rating. Should the rating is B or C and it's over 50% certainty, I use it. This Page's Current ORES Rating is B or Higher at 84.7%. So a B rating seems

Should this be an flawed way to rate pages. Please tell me why. I can just switch so that everything C or above is rated C, if you would like to. Supyovalk (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that’s helpful. I’ve no idea how these tools evaluate source reliability. I shall take a look. Thanks again for getting back. KJP1 (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]