Talk:Preston Park, Stockton-on-Tees

UK geography Stub‑class Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Size of the park

When I recently re-wrote this page, I changed the area to the 100 acres quoted by the local council. It has since been changed back to the 700 acres that another user claims he worked out using Google Maps. Whatever method was used, the mathematics appears flawed.

One acre is equivalent to one chain by one furlong. This is 22 by 220 yards. This is roughly equal to 400m by 10m. Anyone who knows the site can tell that there is therefore no way the park can be 700 acres. Indeed, my retired uncles who are both locals and old enough to know an acre when they see one, snorted with derision at the idea of it being 700 acres.

I will not change the figure immediately but will give time for this notice to be read and commented on.
--SmartShark (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I haven't walked round it with a surveyor's wheel, but I have walked round it many times with kids, kites &c. 700 acres? No way! I would think 100 is far closer to the mark. I wonder whether the Google Maps user is including the open countryside adjoining the park on the far side of the river? It can be hard to see which fields are part of a park and which are not. I'd change it back and cite the council's website [1] as a source. --Ka renjc 22:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Multiple issues' tag

Andrew Duffell, prominent wikieditor for articles covering this geographical area, tagged this page as having multiple issues back in August. Despite the tag itself promoting discussion in this very talk page, there is nothing offered as a reason for the tagging nor ways to improve the article.

In addition, the acreage of the park was reverted despite the discussion above showing consensus on a smaller figure. Mr Duffell, sort your act out. You may be a prolific editor but you're sloppy. --SmartShark (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the park as 2400m by 2400m (2 Square KM). Can you really dispute that as a figure?!?!! I've measured the park, and trust me, it is accurate. The figure in acres is an automatic conversion by wikipedia.

To clarify, the article: needs additional references or sources for verification, needs to be expanded to contain more relevant information, and it may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

Andrew Duffell (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. However, that is all you have done. You have completely failed to answer. Maybe you should stand for parliament.

Seriously,you did not clarify anything. You merely re-stated the bullet points of the template. A useful response would be to point out which sections you believe need cleaning up and why. As for providing "more relevant information", are you saying that you believe that there are significant omissions at present or that irrelevent information is included?

Quite how you dare mention references and sources when, in editing the size of the park, you removed the entirely reasonable and reliable reference that I had inserted, is beyond me. The council website that I linked to says the site covers approx 100 acres. Google Maps clearly show approximately 1km of park alongside Yarm Road, going back around 500m to the river. Schoolboy maths gives a very approximate 0.5 km² (equating to around 100 acres), well short of your favourite number of 2.4.

Finally, this very page displays a message from another user who agrees with a figure of 100 acres. That, I would contend, amounts to some consensus. Allied with the official figure shown on the local council's website, I can't see why you continue to argue. At the very least, offer something better than a vague "I measured it" - which on its own is barely worth more than saying "because I said so".

Andrew, I respect the enormous amount of effort you've put into a lot of local-interest articles, but you're not infallible. The figure required is approximately 100 acres. The tidy-up tag might be justified if you just explained your reasoning for applying it, so I invite you to do so.

--SmartShark (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]