 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I've reviewed the new material introduced into this article (particularly in these two edits), and it quite clearly fails WP:NPOV, let alone WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. The issues are as follows:
- Usage of primary sources as citations. This is unacceptable; reliable third-party reportage is required to satisfy WP:RS.
- Strong statements without supporting citations. For example, this paragraph:
- The heart of criticisms relate to the Ontario Municipal Board's perceived image as rubber stamping of development. Although this may not be an entirely fair assessment, a more fair perception might be that the board fails to properly power balance the resources of corporations who can simply overwhelm the resources of communities and citizen groups when those corporations see a substantial opportunity that does not appear to conform with the current planning.
- Or this sentence: This is a structural deficiency as it relates to providing expertise in specialized areas of planning.
Removal of sourced material (eg - the OMB dealing with heritage matters).- A clear WP:COI for one user relating to this article.
- Usage of unencyclopedic tone (eg - The approval of a large 17 storey condo tower ... in the original settlement area of designated heritage district rocked the community.) This is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. If you want to write newspaper articles, take it to Wikinews.
- Removing proper wiki formatting, for example with the Ottawa Citizen reference.
To the new user, please note that WP:NPOV states that multiple viewpoints should be presented, but WP:UNDUE states that the mentions should be proportional to their mention in media etc., and WP:RS requires that all contentious statements by unequivocally supported with citations. Mindmatrix 13:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
