Jump to content

Talk:Glendora, California

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 104.175.94.213 (talk) at 00:07, 23 December 2020 (→Puff, puff). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconCalifornia: Los Angeles Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).


Notable residents

In the "Notable Residents" section, shouldn't there be some indication (at least for those other than for instance Sally Rand who have their own articles), as to why they are worth noting? Ironwolf 14:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since I made the above comment last September, I continue to see families being added to the "Notable Residents" section, but since there has been little action in adding support to why these residents are notable I'm considering moving the unsupported listings to the Talk page until people choose to support these assertions. 21:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I've now marked the article as needing more citations, and specifically called out the Notable Residents that need them. Please help by adding the needed information. Ironwolf 21:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited Notable Residents

I have moved the following entries here from the Notable Residents section. Please add the needed support for including them, then move them back to the main article. Ironwolf 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • George Whitcomb
  • Joe Finkbiner
  • Heinz Rubel (known as Hal Raynor, comedy partner with Joe Penner)
  • Grant Toneck
  • The Milhous Family
  • The West Family
  • The Flowers Family
  • The Gordon Family
  • The Bidwell Family
  • The Bollinger Family

-The "Gordon" Family ties back to a previous mayor of the city and now a mult-million dollar mansion housing tract in the Glendora Foothills. -There is a school called "Whitcomb" and a street but beyond that I dont know the significance. I cant find much more info on the other families listed above. Bruce12 22:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of family names with historic significance that Ironwolf removed which should be restored though with newly-created Wikipedia articles which provide more information about their history in the city.
There is also no mention of the Donut Man doughnut store which is the city's most famous doughnut store and has ended up being covered in numerous newspaper and magazine articles, television shows, and is enumerated by many Hollywood actors as their favorate "restaurant." Damotclese (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

erm

Why do the districts of this plae lead to an estate agents website ? Needs a cleanup 78.105.34.66 (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puff, puff

Would it be possible to work just a trifle more puffery into the opening section?Cactus Wren (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eight years later, the opening section is still somewhat biased in favor of Glendora. Earlier today there was the sentence "Glendora's most exclusive neighborhoods contain many very large, secluded, estate homes with sweeping views across the San Gabriel Valley to Downtown Los Angeles." I made one slight change to this sentence. A lack of citations prevented me from changing it further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.94.213 (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same editor. I just added a bias template to the page. The opening section has a weak Self-serving bias. —104.175.94.213 (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)104.175.94.213[reply]

Needs a lot of work

Not any mention of the extensive orange groves? Or, for that matter, there is no mention of the South Hills which overlooks the 210 freeway which is used for hiking, meth production, housing the homeless, all that happy stuff. No mention about notable historic landmarks like Glendora Mountain Road, the early locomotive transportation that passed through the city over 100 years ago even before it was officially a city, no mention of being part of the San Gabriel Watershed or mention of the Dalton Wash drainage that supplies Southern California with a lot of drinking water.

I also see that some of the information is woefully out of date. The local hospital has been greatly reworked with new Emergency Room facilities while at the same time the number of people working there is now far lessthan 500 thanks to layoffs and thanks to the unpaid volunteer staffers having mostly abandoned the facility due to the Republican corporate management's take-over of the hospital's volunteers.

If nobody else updates some of these failings, I'll do it. Damotclese (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Institutions For Removal

I'm going to suggest the removal of the newly-added "Religious Institutions" sections since it appears to be Blatant Promotion of a specific religious group and thus violates a number of Wikipedia guidelines.

If the editor who made the update would like to re-submit a section covering Religious Institutions which is inclusive, informative, and meets Wiki guidelines, please do so. For now if you would like to discuss my proposed removal, please do so, if I don't hear back from you in 3 days I will remove the section and assume you are working on an update.

Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I reverted the editor who added the Blatant Promotion of a specific religion's offices since the editor has not responded. If the editor would like to discuss further development of a section covering religious offices, please discuss it here. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dottie Walters update

The entry for Dottie Walters which was reverted, if you would, please create a page covering Dottie Walters -- even if it is just a stub -- and then provide the link in this extant article again.

Usually broken links are not and should not be a fatal flaw, they are often used as place-holders however since an editor reverted the update, it would be good to have an article created on Dottie Walters and then have the link restored. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a broken link. It was red because there is no WP article for Walters. If a page is created and if there is reliable sourcing that shows Walters as a Glendora resident, I'd have no objection. But these "notable people" sections are prone to spamming, so WP:WTAF is generally followed. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A so-called "red link" may be removed if a case can be made that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject. There was also no citation provided to verify that this person, in fact, passes the notability guidelines or that she has ever lived in Glendora. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undue promotion

The article's tone is one of promotion with adjectives such as "sweeping" and "very" sprinkled in which makes it un-encyclopedic yet also there are numerous statements which lack references or citations. I see that a new account "Glendorachamber" is a WP:SPA -- a Single Purpose Account -- which is generally met with disapproval, and the user account name is also a minor violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

The promotional tone of the article needs to be fixed, and references and citations need to be added. Damotclese (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sister City?

What makes a Japanese and a Mexico city "sister cities?" Why 9is that section in there, does anybody know? Damotclese (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--> There is a student exchange program between Goddard Middle School and one of the schools in the Japanese "sister city" of Moka. I'll add this to the main page, though it will have no citations. I have no idea how Merida is of significance. Anyone with more information, please add to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.94.213 (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a citation for the Glendora-Moka student exchange program. I dug around on the web for a few minutes and found that Sandburg Middle School also has a sister school in Moka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.94.213 (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sister City section may be removed if we can agree that it is unnecessary. See the section "Suggestion: Promotion to C-Class" which is currently at the bottom of this talk page for the reasoning behind the removal suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.94.213 (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glendora, California. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Glendora page for the "Sister City" reference is dead. I suggest we relink to http://www.sister-cities.org/ or something suitable which explains what a "Sister City" is, lacking a fix from the Glendora web site people, or lacking a fresh link that actually works. Damotclese (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Glendora, California. 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:

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) 21:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sexist, possessive language

. For every 100 females there were 93.2 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 89.6 males. -- This is worded as if males belong as the property of females, as if we're talking about property, not people. There must be a better way to work the rhetoric to describe the percentage of gender mix without using the word "for" which in this grammar denotes the possessive case. Damotclese (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Glendora, California. 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:

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) 13:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crime rate

I see that an unreferenced claim about low crime rate was removed. Crime rate statistics may be found at this location https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/glendora/crime if anyone wants to add the reference to the extant article. SoftwareThing (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Promotion to C-Class

I haven't been around Wikipedia long. There's this thing called a quality scale. It rates the quality of articles. As of early December of 200, this article is rated Start-Class. Any member of WikiProject California is free to add—or change—the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines. We need to change the quality rated to C-Class, but I'm not part of WikiProject California. Below are the requirements for Start-Class and C-Class:

Criteria for Start-Class: The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily

Criteria for C-Class: The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.

This article is clearly better than a Start-Class. The prose is reasonably encyclopedic. With 45 citations, the referencing is not inadequate. A C-Class article may contain bias or original research and need more clarity or balance.

Update: The notable people section and filming sections are the weakest points in the article. The sister cities section is also somewhat weak. Nonetheless, the article cites more than one reliable source and is more well-developed than Start-Class articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.94.213 (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the "sister city" stuff is weak and adds nothing to the wiki entry, it's a "nobody cares" kind of thing and just clutters the article. And the "notable people" is just as weak, most of the entries are people who aren't notable, not famous, they're people nobody has ever heard of which also makes the article poor.
Also it does seem to be worthy of a "C" now despite those two problems.
We should remove the "sister city" stuff entirely, and we should remove the "notable people" who aren't, then the article's quality would improve considerably. SoftwareThing (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The "sister city" stuff isn't of actual value to the article. We should probably remove it, but we shouldn't remove it without greater consensus. We need to be careful about which notable people we get rid of. We shouldn't remove people if they had a major contribution to a field or won an important award. We also need to make sure they actually live/lived in Glendora. If we can't find a reliable source that says a person lived in Glendora, then we should remove them. All people removed from the notable people section should be put somewhere on this talk page. I noticed Fettlemap removed the citation for Bryan Clay, an Olympic gold medalist, and rightly so. The citation provided was accidentally advertising. We need to add citations for the notable people and filming sections, but they have to be reliable and non-promotional ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.94.213 (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glendora,_California&oldid=995805736"