Talk:Kingston upon Hull/Archive 3

Photo archive

The Hull City Council photo archive web site is currently off line and I have commented out the link in the article, It can be restored when the site is back on line or a new system is enabled. Keith D (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Marvell

The article is a good read, but why no mention of Andrew Marvell, one of the country's great poets? His most famous poem mentions the Humber and he's even got a statue in Hull. He was Hull's MP too, and a large number of his parliamentary letters are preserved in Hull.

It might also be worth mentioning that two of the supreme ecclesiastical buildings of England - Beverley Minster (very close) and Patrington, the finest decorated Gothic church in the country, are near the city.

Bandalore (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Distance to the North Sea

This is (according to Google Earth measuring tool) 10.5 miles as the crow flies or 25 miles sailing down the Humber.As not many crows read Wikipeda , I think we'll stick with 25 miles.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kingston upon Hull/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Gary King (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I would've passed this so quickly. I think most of the data itself is good, but the placement of images and the organization still needs a lot of work.

• Unnecessary bold text in the bullet points under 'governance' should be removed per WP:MOS.  Done

• The climate chart overlaps into the demographics section over on the right. I'd recommend using {{Average and record temperatures}} instead, which won't do that.
  • Moved chart to top of section as per Manchester article.
    • Replaced previous chart with table and added image--Harkey (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• 'Demographics is very short, and looks very awkward with a little intro, followed by a table, and then two footnotes for the table below. I question whether the demographics section can be really called "complete" at this point. One thing that would help would be to move the 'religion' section into 'demographics' -- it really shouldn't be it's own main section anyway.
  • Add some employment detail and added Religion section to end without header.

• Demote 'transportation and infrastructure'; it should be one of the last sections in the article. Infrastructure related things aren't nearly as important as things like culture and economy.
  • Moved to later in article above Public services.

• 'Economy' has a very short sentence on the port, and then another sentence on some businesses based in the city, comprising the first, very short paragraph. Then, there's a rather large paragraph on shopping centers, which are not nearly as notable and don't contribute nearly as much to the economy as businesses based here. Unless, of course, the town derives much of its economy from tourism, but I don't see that mentioned here. I'm not getting anything of value out of the table of regional trends; there's insufficient text introducing the table, and the table really doesn't offer much to the article. In short, the economy section needs major expansion and is does not meet the "completeness" criterion at WP:WIAGA.
  • Pulled table and slight expansion on port & businesses

• The 'regeneration' section should be moved to history, since it's historical in nature. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to put this section several sections separated from history.
  • Moved to end of History section

• 'Public services' is really connected to 'infrastructure', and should be included with that section.
  • Remove header and leave under Transport and infrastructure headings.

• Many of the subsections under 'culture' are very short, and could be expanded. Although this is not so much of a GA-related issue, moving forward I think it would be wise to not have individual subsections for 'literature', 'theatre', 'classical music', etc, and instead try to focus on weaving the various elements of culture into one coherent, well-written main section on culture.
  • Noted for later work
    • Removed section headings copyedited for better flow resized and moved images--Harkey (talk) 09:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• The section on 'Reputation' is not normally included as a main section in city articles, and its inclusion has serious WP:NPOV issues. It's citing a lot of matters of opinion, and while things like the media citations of, "the worst place to live in Britain" and "The Best and Worst Places to Live in Britain", putting it in a main section like this is putting far too much weight on it. While these two sources technically meet WP:RS, I don't think this much weight should be put into a top 10 list which is essentially an advertisement in disguise as journalism. But also, in the next paragraph, the sentence, "In spite of these issues, many of the city's residents are very proud of Hull, its history, and its traditions, using such terms as "underrated", "thriving", "fantastic", and "wonderful" to describe their home." is cited by a real estate blog, which is not a reliable source. This whole section needs to be removed; some material can be moved to other parts of the article, but as it stands, it does not meet WP:NPOV.
  • Section pulled

At the present time, the article does not meet the GA criteria, and I am delisting it at sending it back to WP:GAN under on hold status. Once the issues are addressed, it can be listed. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This review is meant to verify if changes have been made to the article to achieve GA status. 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Prose is awkward in places. Run-on sentences with unbalanced appositives are the norm and make the article difficult to read. Use of passive voice is frequent and unnecessary. For example, "Archaeological surveys, conducted between 1994 and 2001, in the wetland environment of the Hull valley have discovered that the area has been inhabited since the early Neolithic period" is probably best rewritten as "Archaeological surveys of the Hull valley conducted in the late 1990s show evidence that the area has been inhabited since the early Neolithic period." For example, "Originally an outlying part of the nearby hamlet of Myton, the site was chosen in the late 12th century by the monks of Meaux Abbey to develop as a new town named Wyke upon Hull. The River Hull provided a good haven for shipping whose main trade was in the export of wool from the abbey and other local landlords. The town was acquired from the abbey by King Edward I in 1293, who granted a royal charter, dated April 1, 1299, that renamed the settlement King's town upon Hull, or Kingston upon Hull" can be written as, "In the 12th century, the area that later became Kingston upon Hull was originally an outlying part of the nearby hamlet of Myton. Monks from nearby Meaux Abbey developed the area into a new town named Wyke upon Hull, which King Edward I acquired in 1293. A royal charter was granted on 1 April, 1299 that renamed the settlement "King's town upon Hull", or alternatively, Kingston upon Hull." Done Further, areas need to be condensed. In general, sections are too long/wordy and sentences can be combined/separated to provide better flow to the article. Information is also repeated unnecessarily in sections.

   B. MoS compliance:

   All abbreviations need to be written out (and preferably linked) the first time so that those not familiar with the term can understand what it means. Minor point: As a general rule, in formal writing like this, use the term "United States" or "US" instead of "America". Done

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Need references: History section, paragraph ending "Princes Quay shopping centre"; Governance section, paragraphs ending "Independent member for Yorkshire" Done and "Hull was made a unitary authority area"; Demography section, sentence ending "particularly in the transepts"  Done(note: why is this info even in Demographics?  DoneIt should be part of the history/culture/geography sections); Transport section, sentences ending "travel inland as far as Goole", Done "to many European destinations"  Doneand paragraph ending "are operated by EYMS." Done; and Dialect section, sentences ending "variation across areas and generations" Done and "had received a phone call". Done cut sentence

   C. No original research:

   As some pieces are not cited, unable to determine if there is OR. Likely OR in dialect and transport sections.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Like said above in prose section, go through the article and try to determine what is necessary to keep in the article. What points are actually interesting to general readers of the article and which piece of information are simply trivial?

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Photo captions should generally not end in a period. For example, "One Humber Quays, home to the World Trade Centre Hull & Humber." should not end in a period because it is not a sentence (there is no verb). So either remove the periods on those captions or insert a verb so it says "One Humber Quays is home to the World Trade Centre Hull & Humber." Done

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Still cannot recommend GA status, mostly due to problems with prose and organization. Topics are introduced in unusual sections. For example, all the information under the panorama about recent developments, which by its very definition, is not history. The information is also repeated in the economy section, even though that is where it is probably best displayed. Further, there are too many unjustified subsections. Not every new topic needs its own subsection, separate paragraphs do just fine. As the article has already exceeded the week-long revision deadline, article will fail GA status for now but please renominate when revisions are complete. Good luck! Best, Epicadam (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reputation section

This section was pulled as a result of comments on the GA review and has been placed here as a holding place. Some of the material may be useful to put in other sections.

Hull's history is that of a solidly industrial city, with working-class sensibilities. Like many other cities and towns, it has suffered the negative effects of Britain's transition to a post-industrial society. These effects include, among other things, a decaying infrastructure, a diminished industrial base, and areas of urban blight. These factors contribute to Hull having the second highest level of deprivation in England, after Liverpool. Hull was named "the worst place to live in Britain" in the Channel 4 programme "The Best and Worst Places to Live in Britain" and the "second worst place" in 2007, after being absent from the 2006 list of worst places to live.

In spite of these issues, many of the city's residents are very proud of Hull, its history, and its traditions, using such terms as "underrated", "thriving", "fantastic", and "wonderful" to describe their home. Many residents and visitors also credit it for its down-to-earth, working class-attitude and its friendly nature. The University of Hull has a reputation of being one of the friendliest universities in the United Kingdom.

Hull's national reputation is also reflected by the positive striving of the Council to improve the city's welfare. However, the city has had poor performance in terms of most socioeconomic indicators in comparison with the rest of the UK. Hull City Council was designated as the UK's worst performing authority in both 2004 and 2005, which the Council are trying to improve with its new £200 million St. Stephen's project.

Hull is seen as something of a national oddity: a large city, in the midst of a very rural part of Yorkshire, at the very edge of the nation. The rest of the East Riding has always looked upon Hull as a very different entity, and government decisions have taken this into account with things such as post codes, telephone networks and other regional groupings.

Economy section

This table was pulled from the Economy section as a result of comments on the GA review and has been placed here as a holding place.

Below is a table of trends of regional gross value added for Hull at current basic prices.

Year	Regional Gross Value Added (millions of GB₤)[a]	Agriculture[b]	Industry[c]	Services[d]
1995	2,748	5	1,014	1,729
2000	3,231	3	1,205	2,023
2003	3,711	6	1,406	2,299

^a Components may not sum to totals due to rounding

^b Includes hunting and forestry

^c Includes energy and construction

^d Includes financial intermediation services indirectly measured

Arms of Kingston Upon Hull

I think it will be great to find and add Hull coat of arms. As for example featured in York article, the Coat of arms of York. --Cliff (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Major overhaul as per GA review

• Altered the order of the sections.

• Put religious sites in Geography

• Deleted Climate sub section heading

• Added some refs and altered others for more reliability.

• Expanded Demography.

• Condensed Dialect and accent.

• Full stops removed from image captions.

• Some passive passages revised.

• Substituted US for America in one instance (others were official titles).

• Added scroll facility to References section.

• Preliminary copyedit.

--Harkey (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi I think that you will find that the scrollable references is not allowed for accessibility reasons. Though I have had a look at the WP:MOS and cannot put my finger on the bit that says this should not be used, I knew it last year when I needed it. Keith D (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the scrolling references & done some minor copy-edits. I have re-jigged the start of demographics section as did not read right. There is a reference missing for the rented houses figures as I could not spot them in the census page so did not add the 2001 census reference. Keith D (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a few refs and removed more full stops from images. Sorry about the scrolling ref section. I guess it doesn't work on some browsers.--Harkey (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought that I had gone through removing the full stops, but obviously not. While you were away I did go through Economy section doing some re-jigs. The bit

"The 50 stall indoor Trinity Market is also due to be renovated. Between April 2006 and 2007 shops in Hull took £484 million ($991M) a rise of £13M over the previous 12 month period."

needs a look at. The first sentence is a bit out of place and needs a reference if kept, I was thinking may be we do not need that now. The second part is referenced by the dead link and is probably a bit dated now, I would think that we need to get more up to date figures or at least a new reference. Probably needs go go higher up the section to show the importance of shopping to the economy, probably before launch into the shopping centre regeneration. Keith D (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any substitute for the dead link. I did find this which I haven't ever come across before and which may help to expand some sections.--Harkey (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just found this link which may be of use as a source for the article. Keith D (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the moves suggested above on 19:02, 6 July 2008 should be OK. What needs to be done next? Guidelines suggest:-

# 1 Article structure example for a U.K. settlement

• 1.1 Infobox*

• 1.2 Lead*

• 1.3 History

• 1.4 Governance

• 1.5 Geography

• 1.6 Demography

• 1.7 Economy

• 1.8 Landmarks

• 1.9 Transport

• 1.10 Education

• 1.11 Religious sites

• 1.12 Sports

• 1.13 Public services

• 1.14 Notable people

• 1.15 See also

• 1.16 References

• 1.17 External links

# 2 Optional headings

• 2.1 Industry and commerce

• 2.2 Culture

• 2.3 Politics

• 2.4 Media

• 2.5 Invention and discovery

• 2.6 Future plans

• 2.7 Cultural references

• 2.8 Filmography

• 2.9 Community facilities

• 2.10 Culture and community

Do we need to add or rejig any, please? --Harkey (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably the only one that is missing at this stage is Landmarks, which could be a good addition. Religious sites could be used for the bits on Churches but was removed after previous review comments. Keith D (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked at the guidelines for "Services". Maybe we need to expand on that a bit. e.g.hospitals, refuse, water and sewerage.

Yes, I have that in the to-do box, if you want to do something now then fine go ahead. Keith D (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of landmarks in the images but not very much in the text. Are the docks still in the town centre or am I out of date?--Harkey (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The marina covers one of the city centre docks and the Princes Quay is built over another. Most of the dock area is now to the east of the river Hull extending out to Salt End. Keith D (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Balance

As you say, all the major topics that are listed above are given some coverage in the article. Having spent the morning researching services, I can see that adding greatly to this area would throw the balance of this article at the moment. Water and sewerage is interesting (the low lying land and an entirely pumped system) and would almost merit its own article (what with the floods and projected rises in sea level as well). Refuse and recycling is fairly straightforward. Gas and electricity is difficult - how to say who actually supplies privatised energy services. Hospitals are not bad to give a mention to. I'll try to write a paragraph or two later, at the weekend maybe.--Harkey (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Found it !, the electricity problem answered. I should have gone to Wikipedia first Distribution Network Operator.--Harkey (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Economy

I find the following line contentious:

"The economy of Hull was built on seafaring"

Whilst Hull's economic history as a major port is undoubtedly, obviously linked to seafaring I believe that this rather underplays the importance of a wide variety of manufacturing and processing industries providing employment and income to the city throughout it's history, as the home of Reckitt and Coleman, Smith and Nephew, Rank Hovis and latterly a large caravan manufacturing industry etc. Added to this, the River Hull industries and their associations with inland waterways have arguably played as much a part of Hull's industrial and mercantile history as her exploits on the high seas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiator4612 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the names you give are noted in the following paragraph, but as yet there is no real mention of the River Hull industries and the part played by the links to the inland waterways either by the River Hull or the Humber estuary. If you can find some reference material to cover this then I would suggest adding some details. The section needs some expansion from the comments on the recent review. Keith D (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the operative word is "was". Perhaps we might be able to change the sentence to make it clear that this is a statement of the past situation. If we can get any reliable sources of information to help expand the section on the economy, that would be really great.--Harkey (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As a few suggestions of typically (but not exclusively) River Hull based industries, try Oilseed crushing (for linseed oil and cattle feed cake) - KH was for long the worlds biggest centre of this industry - the oilseed came along in time to take over from the declining whale oil industry - that was once another big one on the Hull riverside, based on KH's function as a major (in fact for a time the country's greatest) whaling port, though all that's covered in the maritime museum in the old Dock Office.

Paint manufacturing (again Hull one of the country's major centres), originally based on the happy combination of Derbyshire lead (which was transhipped through the port in great quantities) and linseed oil.

Boat repairing, and even building, in various small River Hull yards.

Roperies.

Sailcloth (?).

Timber yards - for a long time KH second only to London (Surrey Docks) for timber imports - some of this was along the lower riverside, but most around Vic Dock/Citadel site, Queens Dock N side and later Hedon Road.

Gas, electricity.

Less successful but for a time locally important industries such as sugar refining (couldnt compete with London, Bristol and Liverpool which got their feedstock direct from the Caribbean etc - most of KH sugar houses' supplies had to be transhipped and brought up by coasters, adding to cost) and cotton (couldn't compete with Lancashire and Strathlyde as climate too dry to stop threads snapping during spinning, and inferior skilled labour supply).

Perhaps mention should also be made somewhere on the page of hull being regarded as the third British seaport for long stretches of it's history, with - at it's peak - 7 miles of docks. A great source and helpful article for this can be found on the Times Online archive search (try the search 'mainstay of a city's prosperity' for a particularly informative article from 1965) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiator4612 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(sorry don't know how to sign) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiator4612 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You can sign by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comment, this will be converted into your username & date stamp when you save the edit. Keith D (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the East Park video

This video appeared on the article page with no warning or discussion about its relevance on the talk page and was removed by me when the revised text incorporating changes made in the light of the GA review was pasted into the article. The video was about a park that was not mentioned anywhere in the text of the article and thus appeared to be irrelevant and inappropriate. It seemed to be an experiment in importing video rather than a constructive addition to Kingston upon Hull article. The technical quality of the digital video upload is not in question. However,the quality of the video is poor on several compositional counts.

• The panning is jerky and too fast, not giving the viewer time to absorb the scene.
• The subjects are too far away from the camera to convey much information. Composed close ups or slow zooms would have been better.
• Video is best used to show moving objects. The best shot is the bowling green.
• There has been no discernible attempt to clean up or edit the raw footage.
• The individual scenes have no "storyboard" type cues and no smooth joins or fade ins/outs.
• The soundtrack is unedited and there are distracting, irrelevant, conversations and strange "noises off" including wind noise towards the end.
• There are no orientation or explanation captions.

This video would be more relevant if it were in an article about East Park, but it would need to be edited and polished up to match the quality of the text and images in a good Wikipedia article. Personally, I am in favour of adding video to some Wikipedia articles. That is the most appropriate way to clarify, explain and enlighten in certain circumstances. Quality and relevance in video are harder to achieve than technical prowess in shooting and uploading.--Harkey (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Accent

How can the statement "The vowel in "Hull" is pronounced the same way as in Standard English" be at all true? The U will be a Northern U as in the rest of the region. The Southern vowel sound shift never came anywhere remotely this North. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC) This objection is absolutely valid. Whoever penned the offending line has probably done so in error.Malcolmbryant (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RaleighNC.png

The image Image:RaleighNC.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

'The biggest city in Europe never to have hosted top-flight football'

...is something that Hull was famous for until August 2008. To which city does that (dis)honour now belong? Might be something worth mentioning in the article?....Martyn Smith (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)