I am a fan of the breadth of English and gladly give slightly greater than average leeway to alternate spellings and localisms, such as US spelling – and potentially-jargon terms (where defined) – and informal terms where in step with an article's topic. My areas of expertise include grammar, syntax, modern hermeneutics, particularly connotations and hidden messages. Reasoned, where possible permanent, summaries of concrete interesting facts are the purpose of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia's policy dictates: where it is very notable for all people to know about an ongoing controversy then strive for two non-editorial (non-emotive at all) style arguments or do not include it. Use tone of encyclopedias like Encarta/Encyclopedia Britannica's latest edition in every article, not just in major topics. Others go too far sometimes and insert pompous estate agent patter (Americans: realtors). Situated/located are totally redundant - see here - and I didn't write this global guidance. A settlement 'lies' on/by throughout an article only in archaic fantasies about forgotten kingdoms. Nor write "(it) nestles", is cosseted in or commands/dominates a landscape/view – if a point is a panorama or semi-panorama write a brief subsection of landmarks about it – to qualify its mention must be truly notable. And people do not 'reside' throughout an article. In short, even about "favourite" people and places try to write in a way in which does not promote a particular subject or politic, thus without pomp and emotive language. A challenge in today's soundbite-strewn, overly emotional, far too news-dominated environment.
Motorways and cities should not be touted by road as 'five minutes/hours away' because it varies somewhat and can be subject to rapid change. Distance or railway stops/approx. time can be verifiable and notable, but get consensus.
Many good editors assert wikipedia is not a travel guide; there is a happy medium between describing the nearest clear transport artery and, on the other hand, making an essay on splendid isolation or great transport links. Whether most people would sympathise/envy or not, places in an encyclopedia are not to be casually described as run-down, urban blight, stockbroker territory/belt, retirement country, best/worst place to live according to...(peacock and shunning). Avoid sweeping generalisations or one raft of cited opinions, writing in a biased way. Ideally confine newspapers' latest one-sided aspersions to a section in geography articles In film, fiction (or literature) and the media. News may be biased on complex subjects; fads and scares are its lifeblood. Those who have read widely on a sub-topic or from the community/business which is being discussed are likely to be able to cite more pertinent facts. In general the less often "facts" feature in tabloid-style exposés and pastiches, the more academic facts are likely to be.
I like many wikipedians fix or draw attention to vandalism of articles, nonsense articles, unreferenced bold claims and address controversy to keep a see WP:NPOV: Neutral Point of View; discussing all deletions with due process. For more information on the due process in Wikipedia see the editors' guide available at Policies and Guidelines.
I really value Wikipedia's Manual of Style and agree with several helpful suggestions on the talk page there, why not get involved if you have a view on the style of articles you prefer to read? I love to subdue weasel. I don't hesitate to choose a neutral verb/noun rather than those laden with connotations, positive or negative, but per WP:N: the truly notable event or relative status, if it is of very long lasting or overarching importance, may find a place here in this collaboration.
This learning and understanding of policy avoids wikipedia becoming a newspaper or editorial. All should be writing words and phrases which the polarised (thus two) main sides of wealth, politics, geographic proximity (to city centres) and most other polemic debates will not find serious issue with. While the rate of expansion of poverty shows no sign, with environmental and allied pressures not helping, of going away, this only intensifies the news-hungry atmosphere.
I hope this extract of some cornerstone policies of wikipedia ensures you come away from somewhere with a feeling of zen, mindfulness and thankful resistence of ignorance. This evokes the harrowing children of poverty drawn before 1900: want and ignorance quite well. As matters stand most of wikipedia will not leave the amateur researcher wanting (it is, sincerely, hoped); nor leave readers in any state of real ignorance.- Adam37Talk 11:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Just for Fun
This user believes that it is destiny you saw his user page.
This user has a sense of humour and shows it on their userpage.
Links to help you with Simple English articles (if that is a project you can join me with helping with!)