Talk:Lytchett Matravers
| WikiProject UK geography | (Rated Start-class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Dorset | (Rated Start-class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
[edit] Neutral point of view?
Someone has obviously put a lot of work into writing this and I found it a very helpful, informative, and interesting article. However, a few sentences read as though written by a resident from a resident's point of view (which presumably is what happened). It does, I think, need to be ever so slightly more objective in places.
For example: "...the village primary school, which was enlarged and relocated in 1990, has an excellent reputation..." Can we quantify that at all? Otherwise it's just an opinion.
"there are still a significant number[quantify] of villagers who were born, brought up and educated here." Can we quantify that?
"...Events like this, along with the activities of the many clubs and societies, and the churches, do undoubtedly foster a tangible community spirit" Surely an opinion? Any way to ground it in fact?
"Lytchett Matravers has, unfortunately, a relatively high level of reported crime for a rural Dorset village and suffers from more than its share of anti-social behaviour problems." An opinion.
"the village has done well to retain its character and social cohesion through many periods of change and much expansion in recent years." An opinion.
"The specification to de-allocate green belt land around Lytchett Minster appears to have entered the the RSS for no other reason than that the owner of the land and the government stand to draw significant financial benefit from the proposal." An opinion with which, presumably, some would disagree.
Would the writer possibly be kind enough to look at them again, maybe try to quantify some of them (things like "a relatively high level of reported crime") and reword things like the final example ("...for no other reason than that the owner of the land and the government stand to draw significant financial benefit from the proposal"). Thank you very much. They are relatively minor issues in an otherwise nicely written piece. I'm not going to change the article because I don't know anything about the subject. 82.71.0.229 (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree completely with the above comments and although they were made over 16 months ago the article doesn't appear to have changed much during that time. Although some of these concerns have been addressed, the most recent version is still littered with POV, peacock terms and several instances of original research. I've attempted to remove most of this but the article is still severely lacking in references. Barret (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
