Jump to content

Talk:United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chromenano (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 23 January 2010 (→‎Northern Ireland). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Former good articleUnited Kingdom was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 22, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 30, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 11, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 3, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 22, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:FAOL


Poll on Ireland article names

Defence spending

This says the third highest defence spending yet the page linked to on Wikipeda says it's the fourth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.192.150 (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I will change it. Viewfinder (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Music; AC/DC and the Bee Gees; but both were formed in Australia, albeit of young English emigrants dragged out to the Antipodes by their parents. Both are commercial novelties, surely, and not groundbreaking artists such as The Beatles, Led Zeppelin or The Smiths? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.64.124 (talk) 09:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that guy from AC/DC was on top gear and he said he considers himself british and he sounds not at all aussie81.23.50.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Economy

according to the collins world atlas, Britian has the 4th highest GNI (Gross National Income) and i believe that is generally what is used when assesing a contries Economy not the GDP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Touya90 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postwar world statement - reducing UK significance?

In the History section, it currently says the UK was among the powers to help plan the postwar world - isn't this a wee bit understating - the UK was one of the Big Three and as such one of the three key deciders at Yalta, Potsdam, etc. This is one example of something I can see in quite a few places in the article which I perceive to be phrasing designed to reduce the significance in world history of Britain. Not that there are no cases where the British tend to have an exaggerated view of their own importance, but when it is actually the lead player in history, the article should say so. Another example might be ... (the) UK-led Industrial Revolution transformed the country and fueled the growing British Empire... - isn't it actually the case that the UK-led industrial revolution transformed the world, not just the UK. I could go on, but you get the idea. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I added images of Cardiff City Hall and Lampeter University, followed by sources. I added them because they are relevent the the Governance and Education sections respectively, and also to add some diversity to the collection of images in the article so that they don't all just represent England, although I'm not a militant Welsh nationalist or anything. I would like to know why they are being removed. Thanks. Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete the Lampeter pic and the one for Cardiff City Hall is still there. This happened in the middle of me alternating the pictures to cut down the crowding. However, I took the opportunity to put in a pic of Queen's Belfast, as it had previously been discussed that Northern Ireland is even more under-represented than Wales. The only space that now seems to cry out for a picture is at the top of sport around the cricket section. If it is for cricket I suppose it is either Lord's Cricket Ground, or possibly Headingley Stadium. The first is much more photogenic. Any views?--SabreBD (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As well as an entire rewrite of the article, the use of images needs to be reviewed and formalised. I strongly believe that featured or very high quality images should be selected where possible. I envisage the UK article taking the approach of the European Union, England and British people articles (all Good Articles I might add), where images are specific to the prose, use helpful captions, and are adding sparingly. We should be using images that are iconic of the United Kingdom (Shakespeare and Burns should go), IMHO, so something about the Olympics would be more suitable than the (sub)national teams. This is the approach in several books I have about the United Kingdom. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that Shakespeare and Burns are fingered because they pre-date the UK? Its a reasonable argument since the article does not deal with history before the UK is formed. The same logic would mean that Isaac Newton, and the text on literary figures before 1800 should go too. Looking at those other articles, they seem to have about the same density of illustration and type of caption (perhaps I am missing something here). The problem with only using symbols of the UK in all these areas is that it is very limiting, partly because many important institutions are devolved or at a national/regional level. The article attempts to deal with current circumstances in all four (or five for those who prefer) nations, so it seems logical for the illustrations to do the same, not to say that uk symbols shouldn't be preferred where possible.--SabreBD (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back in the archives, the issue of what constitutes the UK, what it means and what should be included in it has been discussed many times before and there have been many dogfights over it. (and presumably catfights too! :) ) I don't see much mileage in making fundamental changes. People come to the UK article because they are basically searching for info about Britain. When they think "UK" they think of British history, regardless of the distinctions in political history between those entities. We shouldn't be removing figures central to the history of what is now the UK and was Britain from the UK article by drawing a line at 1707 and acting as though there was nothing before that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- There are many images of personalities we can use though instead that meet both criteria though. The Beatles, Darwin, Dicken, Hume, Newton, Churchill - all iconic of Britain. If indeed "people come to the UK article because they are basically searching for info about Britain", then we shouldn't be giving them a paragraph on England, a paragraph on Scotland, with matching images. Imagine if the US or EU articles did that. There's too much emphasis on the fragmentation meaning it is difficult to extract UK-wide information, and the images are a very illustrative example of that in many cases. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree very much about your list of leading figures and also with your general point about what people should get when they arrive and the fragmentation in the current article. My concern was just that the "UK" has a large culture and a cultural history deriving from well before 1707 and from the nations of the British Isles which we can't just ignore and it sounded a little as if that was what was being proposed. Actually I wondered looking around at articles on neighbouring countries (like Republic of Ireland which has "Early Background" in it's history section for example) if we shouldn't just have a "general background" section in the history and cultural areas, just to explain a little of what went on before 1707 and give links to relevant articles? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Lampeter image has been removed, may I suggest the SWALEC Stadium for the cricket? This is the national cricket stadium of Wales, has hosted an Ashes test, and is set to host more international tests in the not too distant future. Welshleprechaun (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree entirely. It should be an image about the olympics, because it is the UK's major pan-British sporting team. We don't put U.S. state stadiums on the US article... same with Germany.... both federations I might add, not unitary states. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is about cricket, not the Olympics. Also, England, Scotland, Wales and NI are not states, they are countries, so this is not comparable to the US or Germany. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Jza84 on this one - this is the UK article and so imagery should reflect that. Also Scotland, England, Wales and NI may be some kind of "constituent country" but they are not soveriegn nations in the UN definition - probably the nearest analogy to them internationally is something like Italy encompassing old former nations like the Kingdom of Naples and the Republic of Venice. Plenty of space on Wales for images of that country. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sport section already includes a photo of the Millennium Stadium, so I'm a bit confused about why we need another image of Wales in the section. I agree that the article shouldn't be too Anglo-centric, but Wales already seems to be represented. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:United Kingdom/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jhbuk (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

I have tried to be as thorough as possible, but I haven't analysed every section closely - for some problems, I've just picked out some examples which may or may not be representative - more detailed analysis of individual sentences etc can be given when the major problems are sorted out

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Generally good
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Biggest problem with the article is the lack of references
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Generally good; see comments
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Mostly good, although "Culture" section in particular a little worrying
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Generally good; possibly too many
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Fail for now - if the references are sorted out then it would be getting there
  • More refs definitely needed across the article; particularly in the "Culture" section - This is certainly not the only place that needs improving however
  • Seven dead links [1]
  • Refs shouldn't be in the lead unless the information is unique
  • "Internet" section is pointless as it is; it's basically just a link. Expand it or get rid of it; there is a whole article for inspiration - surely you can do better than that.
  • Fair number of 1-2 sentence paragraphs that should be combined
  • The "See also" section needs work
  • I think there should be some background in the "History" section about before the establishment of the UK - just a basic overview of a paragraph would help give people largely unfamiliar with it some background?
  • No information about unrest in Northern Ireland here (IRA etc) - extremely important in the modern history of the UK
  • "Government":"no elected Sinn Féin ... oath of allegiance to the Monarch" needs a little background about why
  • Possibly too much detail in the local government section?
  • A fair amount of the article, such as "Foreign relations and armed forces", seems like a list of information
  • Possibly too many images?

"Culture": This section needs a lot of work - on top of a lack of referencing:

  • "Literature":"Among the earliest English writers are Geoffrey Chaucer (14th century), Thomas Malory (15th century), Sir Thomas More (16th century), and John Milton (17th century)." Firstly, this is completely arbitrary list - how can "earliest" span 4 centuries, secondly, why does the history section start at the founding of the UK, but this goes back much earlier? This ought to be standardised.
  • Possible NPOV violations and unencyclopaedic phrasing here: "prophetic" "celebrated" "A more grim outlook is found" etc are also unsourced and others are present across the "Culture" section - the whole section does not read like an encyclopedia article
  • The sentence: "The prominence of the English language gives the UK media a widespread international dimension."; you don't comment on this at all in the section, and I don't like the final 3 words either

Northern Ireland

Just to point out to the misinformed person who wrote the information in this topic. Northern Ireland is NOT part of the UK. Great Britain, yes. But the UK, and GB are TWO different entities, and should not be cofused into thinking they are one, and the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.216.112 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it called "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? Jhbuk (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Great Britain is an island; which Northern Ireland isn't on. As Britain is legally synonymous with UK; Northern Ireland is part of Britain.--Chromenano (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Why are there four pictures in the History section relating to military history. I know that the MilHist taskforce has got a stranglehold on WP but is there any chance it could include something else.... a picture of Brunel or something? 80.225.178.204 (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Kingdom&oldid=339599820"