This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding this edit: it's not clear what "issues unaddressed" refers to, but that revision adds significant unreliable sourcing, particularly the list of children cited solely to a deprecated source. If there is specific reliably sourced data to add, or objections to the content that was removed in that revision, please advise; otherwise the poorly sourced content should remain out. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
The children are not the issue. Your version removes information about the image. Gamaliel (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
IMO it is relevant to the subject of the article per the guideline. Gamaliel (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's unclear why that would be the case, given that per the guideline this detail is discouraged in infoboxes. But even if it is, that certainly wouldn't justify the poor sourcing - as per WP:DEPS deprecated sources are generally prohibited. It can easily be added to the previous version, avoiding that problem and retaining the content and formatting removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
That seems reasonable. In regards to the depreciated sources, I have no objection to removing the children in this case, even if they are now properly sourced. Gamaliel (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Glad to hear that - the number alone seems sufficient, and we can't use deprecated sources here when better sources are available. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
