Talk:Broadwater Farm

Broadwater Farm was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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
Date	Process	Result
July 5, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Social Housing in the United Kingdom (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Housing in the United Kingdom, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Social Housing in the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Social Housing in the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Social Housing in the United KingdomSocial Housing in the United Kingdom articles

UK geography 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Automated peer review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2km, use 2 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 km.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, El on ka 15:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article comments[edit]

It looks like this article is really close to GA status. My specific recommendations are:

Remove some of the redlinks
Give it another good copyediting pass. There are several run-on sentences, or sentences with duplicated words.
Don't start multiple paragraphs with the same words.
Ensure that references come after punctuation, not before.
Avoid parenthetical statements. Just put them in the main text.
The different sizes of images is a bit distracting. Many should be more consistent, perhaps 250px
There are too many subsections, some with only a couple sentences. Try to combine them into more general topics.
Ensure that the lead is a good summary of the entire article, per WP:LEAD.

I'm putting the GA nom "on hold" for now. If these issues can be addressed within a week, the nom can probably proceed, otherwise the nom will fail. It can be resubmitted though later, after the problems are addressed. Best, --El on ka 16:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above[edit]

Apologies for taking so long to respond; recent unforeseen events have meant I've been somewhat busier than usual...

I disagree with the comment about the redlinks; the only things that are redlinked are named geographic locations and individuals who undoubtedly pass WP:N (they just haven't had the articles written yet).

As per my many previous arguments, Footnotes come after punctuation is a guideline, not a policy. It is taken from the Chicago Manual of Style, and is specific to American English; virtually all British & Commonwealth publications place the punctuation last. As this is an article written in British English about a location in Britain, having a single American style whilst everything else is in British style would seem to me to jar more than the fact that it deviates from Wikipedia guidelines in a single aspect.

Some of the photos are deliberately in forced size. There are comments in hidden text beside each place where I've done this, to explain why in each case; mostly, either because they have extreme aspect ratios (such as the panorama views) or have detail which would be lost at smaller size (such as the labelling on the map). I agree that it looks messy, but can't see a way round it. I've not forced widths at any point for reasons not allowed under WP style guidelines.

I agree entirely about the subsections; this article was pared down from a longer early version. That said, I think the short subsections in the "Deterioration" section need to be kept, as each relates to a discrete period in the area's history.

At some point when I get the time I'll rewrite and resubmit this, as I think it's an article that could go a lot further, and I've taken it as far as I can — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading references[edit]

Thank you for the work that's been done on this article, but I still feel that it needs more to get to GA status. Currently the tone of is a bit too much like a promotional piece. And some of the references are flat out misleading. For example, the lead talks about how the area is "safest in the world" and has the "lowest burglary rate in the country", but the linked references have no verification of that. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I recommend reviewing all references to ensure that they actually back up the claims. I also recommend that the lead be rewritten to provide a better summary of the overall article. The Broadwater riots were evidently a major incident, yet they're barely mentioned in the lead. Please review the policy on WP:NPOV for advice on achieving a more neutral tone. I'll also repeat what I said above about redlinks, especially since some of the links are repeated throughout the article. However, if references can be provided here which prove that the linked articles are genuinely notable subjects, they might be alright. --El on ka 17:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "safest urban area in the world" claim as I agree the reference in its current state doesn't say that (at the time of writing, it did say it; however, as the source is the local council's website which isn't necessarily a reliable source, I agree it's not valid). The "lowest burglary rate in the country" is, I believe, accurate but again the source is the council's website so I've replaced it with a less contentious "burglary rate of almost zero", with appropriate citation. The figures in the "Crime rates" section are cited from reliable sources, and consequently I've left them in place.

Coverage of the riots was substantially pared back from this article, both to avoid duplication & content-forking from Broadwater Farm riot and to avoid the article focusing too heavily on a single event in the area's history, following a lengthy discussion; the discussion was spread across multiple talk pages, but the bulk of the discussion is here. This follows established Wikipedia precedent for places best known for a single event, and is the same model (dablink at the beginning to the main article on the event; single sentence summary of the event in the lead; brief coverage of the event in question in the article, with a link to the main article) used at Hiroshima, Hastings, Oświęcim, Watts, California, Dresden etc.

I've left the redlinks to "Utopia on Trial" in place, as a quick Google search on the title shows that it's still being widely mentioned by WP:RSs and so would warrant its own article. Although it's a double redlink, I've left both in place; it is linked at its first mention in the article as per Wiki protocol, and also linked in the section discussing the impact of the book itself, as this is the point at which most people would follow the link, were the article created. The same goes for the two named locations (both unquestionably WP:N and hence valid redlinks). I've de-linked Alice Coleman - as she's best known for the book, she would be unlikely to need an independent article. I've also de-linked without prejudice Clasford Sterling; although he'll pass WP:BIO as a former professional footballer, the link can be recreated if necessary as and when he gets his own article.

I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding violations of WP:NPOV as it seems balanced throughout, and I don't see how you can get "reads like a promotional piece" from it; the only parts that's aren't a straightforward (and sourced-and-cited) history are the lead and the "Services & Facilities" section. The former is IMO a straightforward brief summary of the article, whilst I don't see how you can possibly view the latter as promotional - the one positive claim ("the best designed nursery school") is backed by a link to the RIBA award for it, whilst the rest of the section discusses the lack of adequate facilities. All potentially controversial claims such as "there is a lengthy waiting list for housing" are sourced throughout. If you give me examples of what's causing concern, I'll try to sort them out. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-local police force[edit]

There's what seems to be a potentially important comment about a "non-local" police force in the Early regeneration projects subsection, along with a tantalising reference to the Metropolitan Police disbanding the Broadwater Farm Unit in 2005. I can't see that Broadwater Farm Unit having been mentioned before in the article.

I assume it's covered in the riots article, but just a little more info about policing changes might be useful, particularly as the results seem to have been so spectacular. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I ran across this article while doing Random Page patrol, and I noticed that it did not pass a GA bid. I've made some changes to this article's images that I feel will assist in the overall quality of the article, for its next bid for GA. First, the manual of style suggests that images be either all right-aligned, or alternating. This article was neither. The result was a very visually distracting page. I've right-aligned all images except the labeled panorama. As for the image sizes, forcing image sizes is not recommended, users can set their own personal preferences for image size display, and/or click on the image to see the full image. I realize the labeled panorama serves a useful purpose, but it too was overly large. Per MOS: "Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult." Obvious exceptions to this are maps, panoramas, or large intro images that serve to show the "essence" of the article. The page is much more visually calm now, not overwhelming, allowing the images to serve their intended function - provide additional information to those who wish it, but not intrude or be decorative. Remember also, that not everyone even chooses to display images. Cheers! ^Ariel♥Gold 12:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I've no intention of edit-warring over it, I've reverted your changes. The images with forced image sizes & left alignment are all done so for specific reasons, specifically permitted in the MOS (and with lengthy hidden-text annotations next to each image that deviates from MOS explaining the justification for that particular case, quite aside from the lengthy discussion on the matter here) - allowing images with extreme aspect ratios to display at a reasonable size (at 180px, one of the images is displaying at less than 1.5cm tall on my monitor); keeping diagrams large enough to be legible and illustrations showing particular detail large enough for the architectural details to be visible; left-aligning one of the two illustrations in a section to ensure that both illustrations are displayed in the appropriate section. Yes, it's not as "visually calm", but this is an article about Brutalist architecture, racial tension and serious rioting; "calmness" is an inappropriate goal for it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I would never get into a revert war over something like this. But it should be noted that there are no "hidden text" annotations about the images in the article, (perhaps they were removed at some point before I ran into the page), or I would most likely not have made the changes I did. And it is no problem if you want the page displayed this way, I was just trying to help get it cleaned up to perhaps try another GA run, but your explanations are fine, so no worries! ~*Grin*~ ^Ariel♥Gold 07:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, not to worry - this has been worked & reworked so often the hidden captions may well have wandered off at some point. I don't feel strongly enough either way to squabble if anyone does want to resize them, but I do think this is one of those "exceptional" cases where the sizes need to be forced large, since so much of the text focuses on architectural detail. Since it's never going to be an FA (unless someone does a complete rewrite) the MOS violations don't really matter in any case. — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! The place sounds really interesting, and I especially loved your likening of the visual calm in contrast to the article's subject, quite clever! Hee hee. ~*Grin*~ ^Ariel♥Gold 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Broadwater Farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.regenerate-uk.org/downloads/7_london.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Broadwater Farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Broadwater Farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184655/http://www.met.police.uk/history/broadwater_farm.htm to http://www.met.police.uk/history/broadwater_farm.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parking a reference[edit]

Booth, Robert (20 June 2018). "Two Tottenham housing blocks at risk of catastrophic collapse". the Guardian. Retrieved 20 June 2018. This gives further history and backgound to another potential tragedy. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Booth, Robert (21 June 2018). "Haringey council accused of negligence over dangerous Tottenham blocks". the Guardian. Retrieved 21 June 2018. --ClemRutter (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]