Talk:Urban Eden
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Conflict of Interest
[edit]As per the wikipedia policy on conflicts of interest, I openly admit I have one on this subject. However, being a four-year editor of wikipedia with over a thousand edits, I've gone out of my way to write it from a neutral POV. I welcome anyone and everyone to come and add both sides of the story in equal measure; if the article is overly pro-Urban Eden then that is simply because I know more of that side of the story than i do of the other. I meant no lack of neutrality, the article is certainly not written to be pro or anti anyone. Tom walker (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- The article is poorly cited, and reads like a flyer. Improve it or I'll nominate it for deletion. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm improving it, as I speak I'm going through the MKP website to grab a few references from there. I'm not sure who benefits from the article being deleted though. Tom walker (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Further to that, there is now an MKP counter-argument on the grid roads section to neutralise the article further. Someone else has also improved the article and added links to some MK News and Citizen articles. I will do more later, obviously I can't do everything in one go. How much more is needed to lose the single source tag? I've also read through the WP policy on conflicts of interest, as far as I can tell I'm not violating any of the guidelines or rules there, I've declared my pre-disposition and have gone out of my way to ensure it doesn't affect the article. The subject is notable, if I were the sort of person who creates articles to advertise things that aren't notable I would have written an article about myself by now.Tom walker (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- The news articles are merely external links and need to be properly tied into the text. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Further to that, there is now an MKP counter-argument on the grid roads section to neutralise the article further. Someone else has also improved the article and added links to some MK News and Citizen articles. I will do more later, obviously I can't do everything in one go. How much more is needed to lose the single source tag? I've also read through the WP policy on conflicts of interest, as far as I can tell I'm not violating any of the guidelines or rules there, I've declared my pre-disposition and have gone out of my way to ensure it doesn't affect the article. The subject is notable, if I were the sort of person who creates articles to advertise things that aren't notable I would have written an article about myself by now.Tom walker (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm improving it, as I speak I'm going through the MKP website to grab a few references from there. I'm not sure who benefits from the article being deleted though. Tom walker (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- The article is poorly cited, and reads like a flyer. Improve it or I'll nominate it for deletion. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
By way of confirmation, may I note that Urban Eden is highly notable in Milton Keynes, particularly in the context of the expansion plans for Milton Keynes. Their views enjoy widespread support in MK. [The NPOV challenge is questionably relevant. It is a pressure group that has a partial point of view. The main articles just mentioned give the neutral version. But the article as it stands does give MKP's rationale]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
High-rise in CMK
[edit]The master plan ("no building taller than the tallest tree") refers explicitly to residential areas. The maximum height for CMK was six stories. See Milton Keynes#Height. Jury's Hotel etc exceeds that, certainly. The section needs to be improved to say exactly what sort of tower blocks (since outsiders will assume it means residential towers) and state the original height limit. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)