Talk:Hall affair

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 April 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect.

	This redirect was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This redirect was accepted on 7 October 2012 by reviewer MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This redirect 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 redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I am the original contributor, and I have now modified the original article with in-line references, and I have added a short new section on the wider aftermath of the events, within the political context. Also, I am not too happy that the name of the article has been modified. The building is known as The Hall (not Hall), and since there are many thousands of buildings so named, then I believe Gosport in the title is important - so, either The Hall Gosport Affair, or The Hall Affair, Gosport. I have to admit to be technically rather inept, and I would like to find another editor who is prepared to post my revised version if I can send it to him / her. Thank you, Bastions Bastions (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This all reads rather oddly

This page reads very oddly to me and raises a number of concerns:

The editing history of the main author, User talk:Bastions (no Userpage) would suggest a connection to Stephen Weeks.
The next two major contributors, Ravin De Kaiser and Jeet88833, neither of whom have User or Talk pages, have only ever contributed to this article.
This is true of another contributor, Sanojusen.
The tone is colloquial, unencyclopedic and POV: Some examples:

"a landmark change in attitudes towards conservation" - I'd never heard of it, and I know a bit about heritage conservation.

"The events empowered ordinary people to take a stand against the destruction of their heritage" - completely uncited. Says who?

"dominated by a socialist Labor (sic) council" - cited to Gosport From Old Photographs!?

"Weeks decided to skip school the following day and took a train to London determined to see the minister" - very Enid Blyton, not very Wikipedia.

”damage by local authorities greater than German bombing” - a pretty major claim that definitely needs citing.

"when a local authority was acting in a cavalier – and in the Gosport case, illegal – manner" - uncited, despite alleging illegality.

"....Weeks was 25, he went on to buy and restore a 12th Century castle on the Welsh border, Penhow– which he ran with scholarship and imagination combined for many years" - cited to a guidebook authored by Weeks.

The sourcing is very weak - uncited para.s / a para cited, incorrectly, to Pevsner's 1967 Hampshire, with no page numbers for a book of 834 pages! / Stephen Weeks’ own writings / IMDB / none of the newspapers can be accessed / I don't think a single source can be verified online.

All in all, I think this is a puff piece by an editor with an undeclared connection to the main subject. (See authorship of Draft:Stephen Weeks) I shall look to take it to AfD shortly unless it is improved. KJP1 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

In fairness, the incident does get two sentences, here, [1], but I'm still doubtful that's sufficient to bear the weight of what is essentially a puff piece. KJP1 (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]