Talk:Ermington, New South Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Ermington, New South Wales is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Flow 2 Unsourced information 3 Landmarks 4 POV 5 Extraneous adjectives 6 Transport

[edit] Flow

Needs to flow better. Needs a map. A bit more info in some sections.

[edit] Unsourced information

I'm concerned at the amount of unsourced information which has been added to this article recently. Could the authors of this new material please provide sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy? John Dalton 11:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've added some extra information with references, but John you've deleted it as vandalism! It's good material. Please leave it :) Ryanwiki (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you might have misread the article history as I wasn't the editor you are referring to. I generally leave well alone as long as it is sourced and has relevance to Ermington. Thanks for expanding the article. You've used a few more extraneous adjectives than I would have but I guess that is just a matter of personal style. For example, was Ermington shops really "an essential amenity" given that the commercial centre of West Ryde was just down the road? Is essential backed by the sources? These are only small, hopefully constructive, criticisms though so thanks once again for the contribution. John Dalton (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, John. Regarding "essential", that was the term used in the reference. Whether it was or not, who knows. Feel free to change it if you wish! Ryanwiki (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Landmarks

I've moved the information about the tip and the navy stores from the Landmarks section to the History section. Since they no longer exist, they cannot be considered landmarks! Ryanwiki (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I accept that the term "thriving" is too POV, but the chaos of the commercial area is a significant source of discontent for the local residents. In that sense, arguably the term "chaotic" is POV of a whole community. I contend that the term "chaotic" provides important context and thus should remain. Ryanwiki (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean about Ermington shops having a chaotic feel to them, but unless the statement is backed by the sources it will always be open to challenge. I've done a quick google search ermington "shopping centre" OR shops chaotic OR chaos but that returned nothing of interest. Perhaps some of the local papers have documented the chaotic nature of the shops and the residents' angst? Thanks for expanding the article. I'm intrigued to know where your interest in Ermington stems from. Do you mind telling me? In my case I grew up there. John Dalton (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I strongly support the use of references and adherance to the Wikipedia policy. However, I think we should do so with discretion. For example, NPOV is designed to avoid bias, but at the same time we need to communicate the character of people, places and things. It's a fine line, but it comes down to common sense. In the case of "chaotic", I can't find any references with the local rags because they don't have online search facilities. How about I change it to "busy" and add a pers obs reference. I'm not being precious about this, I just want it to be informative. (Regading your other query, I'll email you.) Ryanwiki (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extraneous adjectives

John, you mentioned previously some extraneous adjectives. Again I suspect they're drawn from the sources. In any case, could you please point them out so that we can discuss them here, and make the article tighter. It's certainly a work in progress. Ryanwiki (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Transport

I see someone has removed the link to Sydney Buses. I suggest we go a step further and remove the Transport section all together. I don't feel it adds much substantively. Ryanwiki (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)