This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article seems to need a complete rewrite, all of the sources are pressure groups and the like. Surely this organisation has been mentioned by reliable sources? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to say: Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. I'll also help if you want, as I have considerable knowledge about the campaign, but you'll have to help me on the neutrality as I have my own opinion on the group. Please be more precise; which ref's do you think are not valid? Thanks, Yotcmdr (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's considered the high of rudeness to template the regulars with notices that say "if you are not sure how editing works" and the like - leaving that aside, Airportwatch is a pressure group with an obvious bias and we tend to use those sorts of sources as references for statements only about themselves and it's use here might represent WP:UNDUE. The article need the addition of reliable sources such as mainstream newspapers (The Guardian, The Times), journals (the Economist etc) or other news sources. The neurtrality problem was that the article was written in support of the group. We don't do that, we just report *about* the group, we don't support it's goals. I've already stripped out the most glaring problems. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, point taken. No need to get touchy about the template. It's only {{sofixit}} (So fix it; fix the article). No disrespect meant. Yotcmdr (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before I edited the article today (23 Dec 2010) it appeared to have been written with a view to devaluing the group. I hope I have now corrected this by removing reference to an unsubstantiated, incorrect and biased list of campaign members (most members are local individuals and many are local authorities) and by inserting SSE's true objectives.
