Talk:Hampshire and Isle of Wight Constabulary

GA failed

This article needs a lot more improvement to get to GA

• The tag at the top of the article sums up the article's problem really; large parts of the article are unsourced and need improved sourcing. The other major problem is the black holes in content
• The lead is too short and needs to be expanded to give a more comprehensive summary of the article
• Single sentence paragraphs need to be merged.
• The history section needs to be filled out more, for instance the first 100 years of history is one small paragraph. The structural reforms leading up to the mergers of the smaller police forces would be important landmarks to explain and expand upon how these occurred and why the government did these things
• The significiant events list needs to be integrated into the history of the prose section. The 1970 Isle of Wight Festival needs to be expanded on so that its relation to law and order can be understood. Ath the moment it is hard to see what a festival has to do with law and order. The significant events seems to imply that the main things to occur to the police force are external mishaps like vehicle crashes, traffic accidents, a police officer getting hit by inclement weather. Were there major initiatives in law enforcement like crackdowns on drug-dealers, anti-corruption investigations, big taskforces against organised crime etc?
• the internal structure of the police is also rather light except for maps of the administrative districts. Do we know what internal facilities they have - surveillance centres, how the divisions work, eg drug divisions, organised crime divisions, riot divisions, traffic divisions etc?
• There is little/no information on how the police heirachy works, anti-corruption watchdogs, police unions, how police are investigated for quality control etc.
• Things like # of cars, budget statistics are missing. #horses for riot control also missing
• Info on what crime happens in the area is totally missing
• The fictional section is unencyclopedic

Best regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of the info about how this article can be improved, I will start fixing the things that you pointed out right away. Thanks --Mifter (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of above with one main exception - the fiction section is encyclopedic as it shows how the force is portrayed in the media. It would be hard to argue that this is not either important or adds to the completeness of the article. I will assist where possible.Gaspode the Wonder Dog (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Divisions

What is the list of places under each division supposed to be? Is it a list of police stations, or just areas covered by each division, or something else? Someone has recently added some suburbs to the Southampton list that don't have police stations, but they haven't added every area to the list. It certainly isn't clear to the reader what this is a list of. waggers (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree and have now edited the list for both cities so that, for the moment, the show only areas that have their a police station - which is consistent with the listings for the rest of the force area. This whole section probably deserves rewriting. HO 87 (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Significant Events

Two issues:

1. Is it appropriate that the two officers killed in the Optica crash in 1985 should be named? This would accord with the naming of Ch/Insp John Smith who was killed during "The Great Storm" in 1987.

2. The section relating to the supplying of force support units to the Met lacks citations as does the assertion relating to the way in which public disorder was prevented in Southampton. HO 87 (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

These sections have been editted. The Optica event remains within the article with the officers involved named. The reference to Ch. Insp. John Smith has been removed as research confirmed that he died at a time and in an event entirely unrelated to the Great Storm. The reference to supply of SU's to the Met remain lacking any citation and if this remains the case for any length of time I propose to remove the reference. HO 87 (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision

This article had become disjointed and out-of-date. I have reorganised the content so that topics are now under relevant headings and deleted content which was considerably out of date. That is not to say that the content is now up-to-date as considerable work is required to complete this. HO 87 (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The content is now being updated in a meaningful way and the layout is now more consistent. It would be useful for content to be reference wherever possible. HO 87 (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional info that may be appropriate to add

Should a section be added detailing the 13-18 volunteer police cadet scheme operated under the constabulary?

Info on the new PIC in Basingstoke?

The force is lead in Britain for several aspects -It operates Investigation Command instead of DCID

-There is a department named CISU which works with both serious investigation unit(murder, rape) and active crime units(kidnapping, trafficing) standing for complex investigation support unit responsible for stuff like phone forensics ect.... more info needed

There is much to be added this is all i remember... Calu2000 (Talk) 20:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hampshire Constabulary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DarjeelingTea (talk · contribs) 09:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Update December 23, 2016: Three notices [1], [2], [3] have been left on the nominator's Talk page over the last 11 days without response. It appears the nominator may not be active at this time. The article is failed without prejudice for its future renomination. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Well-written

Overall good job, however, some issues need to be addressed.

• The lede is too long to be compliant with WP:LEADLENGTH.
• Need a comma between "superintendents" and "one" in history as it's a paranthetical expression.
• In History remove the errant punctuation mark in this phrase - "regular duties 'for the continuous"
• This - In 1967 Hampshire, and the city forces (Southampton and Portsmouth) were amalgamated, as a result of the reforming Police Act 1964, and became the current Hampshire Constabulary. - is a clunky sentence and needs restructuring.
• Per WP:PROSE we shouldn't just have a standalone list like "Significant events" and the content should be converted into prose and incorporated into the rest of the History section.
• Are we sure the "county crest" is correct terminology in "Headgear"? The Hampshire County Council has been granted arms [4], however, the image of the helmet in the photo does not display the crest of those arms, rather, it appears to simply incorporate one of the charges on the field.
• Per the MOS the "3" in "The unit operates from 3 bases" needs to become "three"

Verifiable / no original research

work is needed

• Source needed for the paragraph in history starting "in 1943 ..."
• Much of the uniform section, particularly headgear, needs sources.
• The section "strength and recruitment" is devoid of sources.
• Agency executives, listed in infobox, need sources.
• Earwig shows potential copyvio "unlikely" so that's good.
• Some sources are raw links and need to be fixed (e.g. under senior management team - actually, you could probably nix this section entirely and incorporate it into the infobox)
• List of previous chief constables needs sources

Broad in coverage

The article is broad in coverage while remaining focused on the topic and addressing all reasonable aspects expected of a police article. A cursory search I conducted for other significant information on this topic turned-up empty-handed.

Neutral

The article presents a NPOV.

Stable

meets criteria

• There are no outstanding content disagreements on the Talk page.
• The article is very stable with only incidental recent edits.

Images

meets criteria

• Images are correctly licensed, or meet the requirements for non-free media.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hampshire Constabulary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090311011838/http://www.isleofwightfestival.com/history/1970.aspx to http://www.isleofwightfestival.com/history/1970.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/final_top_100_booklet_website_version_high_res.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The comment about cuts

@User:Bowchaser You asked me to discuss my edit here. I took two issues with the previous version: it didn't belong the lede and wasn't worded in a neutral way. I did not delete the content, I just moved it down into a lower paragraph and changed it to a more neutral wording. Anywikiuser (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@User:Anywikiuser My apologies, I mistook it for deletion when you had merely moved it. I've slightly edited your edit however, adding a line around criticism of the cuts. There is significant well sourced criticism and I think it should be mentioned. Regards Bowchaser (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

There are two aspects to this. There's the widespread opinion in the UK that police forces have been underfunded due to cutbacks in the last decade. I think that sort of commentary should be kept to a minimum here. The other aspect is that local figures think that Hampshire gets a particularly bad deal under the current funding formula. See here - even the Conservative PCC agrees. Anywikiuser (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The criticism nationally should be part of wikipedia (I understand it must remain neutral langauge etc) but there is well documented evidence of the criticism from a wide range of sources, and if you look at the figures the last decade what has happened has been extraordinary in terms of police numbers and central governement funding compared to the preceding decades (or even century depending on what you look at). I think the one line I've added to your edit is neutral enough and should be in? The second point is also correct and should also be added - there are several other forces that get a raw deal like Hampshire. As an aside, every force is struggling at the moment....Bowchaser (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I should clarify, when I said "kept to a minimum here", I meant on the Hampshire Constabulary page. Anywikiuser (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)