Wikipedia:WikiProject West Midlands/Monthly improvement drive/archive/March 2007

This is the archive for the nominations for the article to be improved during March 2007. See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject West Midlands/Monthly improvement drive

Dudley

My nomination would be Dudley - its Wikipedia page does not properly befit a town of its size, being the largest town in the county and one of the largest in the country. Articles for towns and cities of similar size are generally more polished. This article would benefit from a general rounding out - there's no particular aspect of it that I can think of that would benefit significantly from more attention than any other aspect.

Support

Matthew 22:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC) (PROPOSER)[reply]
Erebus555 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fingerpuppet 17:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

To be specific, this article needs photographs, referenced statements, removal of the list-like structure for section such as a schools and hospitals and possibly a map. I think Matthew could be good for the photos as you live there. - Erebus555 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing for people to bear in mind, though. Dudley is not the same as Metropolitan Borough of Dudley, and editors should be careful to not add too much content from other towns in the Borough. Realistically, the pre-1974 boundary should be a decent guide - though the pre-1966 boundary area needs to be given the most prominence. Fingerpuppet 17:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry

Coventry is the second biggest city in the West Midlands. Its page is quite good (not an official rating) and there a lot of linked pages, but there are few references. It should be one of the show case pages and at least a GA, I think. Snowman 22:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Oppose

Comments

Whilst I agree that this should be at least a GA, I don't think an improvement drive would do much to the article. All it really needs is a good going through with all statements being referenced. That could be done in one good edit, in my opinion. I might have a go sometime soon actually. - Erebus555 17:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per Erebus, this article is already pretty good and a whole month's improvement drive would probably be wasted on it. Matthew 12:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Birmingham

What I feel needs to be done to this article is mainly to do with the history of education in Birmingham. I think a major section of history needs to be added to the article and an expansion of the Lifelong Learning section is required - especially in the detail about the libraries which could become a separate section itself. - Erebus555 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Erebus555 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC) (PROPOSER)[reply]
Matthew 12:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC) - as per comment below, and the history of education could also be added.[reply]

Oppose

Comments

Libraries could certainly be hived off into a separate article - I think the City Council has an entire section of its website dedicated to the city's libraries. That alone should give enough meat for an entire article. Matthew 20:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's because the Central Library is their pride and joy, despite the architectural evils. Maybe a request should be added to the project request page. - Erebus555 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should add that I think that if this does get selected for the improvement drive, then the section on the Birmingham article should also have some work done to it. However, that requires very little in my opinion. - Erebus555 12:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]