Talk:Victoria Hall (Ealing)

Neutrality

I added a maintenance tag at top of 2000s section because I think everything that comes after the first paragraph potentially violates WP:NPOV – it has disproportionate focus on the recent dispute from the point of view of campaigners trying to raise the profile of their campaign. It is also effectively Wikipedia:Proseline and reads like a newsfeed that could be condensed into a small number of factual paragraphs. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikipedia should not be used in this way; WP:SOAPBOX refers. It makes no mention of the context: Ealing Council is desperately trying to close a £57 million gap in its budget by 2021 in the face of much higher demand for adult social care. There is also considerable unsourced material in the earlier paragraphs which should be removed per WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. Dormskirk (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a go at redrafting it. It is not perfect but I hope it is more neutral. Dormskirk (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dormskirk: Thanks for taking a look at this, you've definitely addressed the NPOV issue. I'm pleased that you've removed the extraneous detail of recent events from the lead section, which first drew my attention to the biased material in the 2000s section lower down. I agree with most of the other changes you've made but I'm slightly concerned that the article has been stripped down a little too much. In particular, I notice that you've completely removed the 1900s section, presumably because it was totally unsourced, but some of the information could be useful, e.g. the new area was ready for hire in the early 1900s plus the 1960s modernisation. This must have come from somewhere and I wouldn't have thought it was all original research. Maybe it would be OK to leave some of the less contentious material in place for a period of time, with relevant WP:CITENEED tags/templates? That would give others the chance to make a contribution rather than losing this material altogether. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. The general view nowadays on wikipedia is that new material should be properly cited. I will try and find some sources for the specific material material you mentioned and add some of it back in with citations. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodney Baggins:. I have now added back almost all the 1900s material, trimming it where appropriate and added citations. I hope that picks up your point. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! It's a much better article now than it was a couple of days ago, very much appreciated. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]