Talk:Smithfield, London

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSmithfield, London has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 24, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 2, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 11, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Demolition[edit]

I've heard that at least part of Smithfield Market is (or recently was) in danger of demolition. If anyone knows about this, it would be good to add to the article. Jmabel 05:53, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've started adding some content on the planned demolition threat and campaigns. DarTar 14:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section needs updating as most of it it refers to the rejected 2005 plan, not the current plan. The currenmt plan keeps the outside of the buildings on Farringdon road. 80.194.195.149 (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Executions?[edit]

Anyone know of any refs for the executions that occurred in Smithfield? ErgoSum88 (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily find references on marian martyrs executed at Smithfield in the 16th Century, but I don't know of any publication on executions that took place at Smithfield in general, I'd be curious to read about this too. --DarTar (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is very close, however there are a few problems that still need to be addressed.

Record of edits:

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Well done here, reads quite well, however see the next comment:
    B. MoS compliance:
    According to WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." In this article, we have a single sentence, that does do a very good job of telling you where the marketplace is, however it doesn't tell you a thing about anything else. A bit more summary in the lead section, pulling some material from each main part of the article, should greatly improve the article. The lead section should make people want to read the article, and right now it's turning them in circles with the names of five distinct areas, most of which won't be mentioned again.
    Square brackets are to be used for insertion of text in quotes, not angle brackets. I've corrected this, as noted above.
    Expanded lead section with references to the article body --DarTar (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    In the first section, "The area and its history," you have a single reference, in the very beginning of the section. After that we take leaps and bounds through history without a single note. While it will probably be more difficult to do so and not entirely necessary for some of the paragraphs, a few more citations in "Smithfield today" won't hurt either - at least try to get something detailing the historical uses of the now modernized areas. Providing references for the list of executed would also be a very good idea. Don't forget to reference the lead section when expanding it as well.
    Several references have been added to different sections of the article since the review. Many of the historical sections without further references should be regarded just as shortcuts to the respective articles (e.g. Marian martyrs, Peasants' Revolt, William Wallace) that contain extensive lists of sources that would be redundant if added to this page --DarTar (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    A bit more detail within "The ancient livestock market" would be helpful to complement the quotes, which easily take up half of that section. While you're at it, a better word than "ancient" might be good as well - I know the market has been around for 800 years, and while Wiktionary is wonderfully helpful ("very old"), I tend to think Ancient Rome or Egypt or something when someone says "Ancient." This by no means has any effect on the review, I'm just pointing that out.
    I'm a bit reluctant to call the livestock market (ante 1855) simply "old". The official description of the market by the City of London refers to the first market as the "ancient market" (in contrast with the "old", post 1855 market). BBC uses "ancient" to refer to a similar market. --DarTar (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Well done staying neutral in the demolition section.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    The map that uses the Tube logo should mention (on the image page) that it incorporates Image:Underground.svg or a version of it; however, as that image is also on Commons, I don't see an issue with copyright there.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    I'm not sure the "View inside General Market is entirely necessary, however I certainly can't fault the article on poor illustration or captioning. Although, could someone fix the "Workers inside Smithfield Market" picture? It's crooked, and as someone who likes photography, it's driving me bonkers.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I think the issues presented above can be fixed within a short time. While they are currently preventing this article's passing, they aren't too severe and should be manageable. I am putting this article on hold for a period of no longer than one week. If the above issues are taken care of by then, this article will be passed. Best of luck in your continuing improvements. Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As there are only seven hours remaining on the hold, and no edits have been made since my own, this article has failed the GA nomination. Please address the concerns brought forth in the review and re-nominate the article when done. Good luck! Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The article has much improved since the last review! Well done!

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
    The lead section is still a bit short and could use some expanding. WP:LEAD recommends that an article of about this size should have one to two paragraphs - I think this one can easily support two. You have done some good work in expanding what the lead covers.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Much improved since the last review, and your explanation of the uncited areas is certainly understandable. {{main}} can be used to indicate where an existing article overlaps heavily on a section, but I'm not sure there are any good places to do that here. In any event, always keep looking for more sources.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    The only section where this is likely to be a problem is the last one about the demolition plans. The section is ok now, no problems, but as you continue to work on the article (and hopefully get some other editors involved to help) just keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't start leaning one way or another.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    The image in the "Victorian Smithfield" section of the fish market does not have a copyright tag on it. It is a Commons image, and so therefore technically their problem, but it may be a good idea to remove that image in the meantime.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    I don't suspect you'll have need for any more of these for a while. Although, if it's possible to find an old engraving or print of one of the executions, that could be extremely useful for the article.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Well done! This can now be called a Good Article! Keep up the good work, and consider a peer review, and this should be up to Featured Article Status soon! With so much history behind this market, it should definitely be an attainable goal. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cock Lane ghost[edit]

The Cock Lane ghost is relevant to this article as Cock Lane is in Smithfield. Someone may want to summarise the article and put something in here. Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But ... I don't believe in no-ghosts; who ya gonna call ... (sorry) 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joker. Goodness me, KB, a blast from the past. What a nice/sad surprise to rediscover you here what, a year before your death. What a great contributor. DBaK (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meat transport mode[edit]

which brings me to why I really came here In the article we have this sentence: "Today, much of the meat comes to the market by road." I'm not trying to be funny but surely that should be "all"? I mean, I'm sure none of it is coming in by train these days, which was the context of the sentence; equally, it certainly doesn't walk there, helicopter would seem a bit over the top (aha) and the nearest waterway's a mile or two off. Cycling on the pavement is illegal even for humans and transporter beams have rarely been seen in EC1. Stop me if I am being stupid but surely it must be road-only?? DBaK (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Smithfield, London. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boiling Alive[edit]

The article says tata swindlers and coin forgers were executed by boiling at Smithfield. I think this method of execution in England was only in force for poisoners, and even then only between 1531-1546. Elsewhere in Europe I believe forgers were subjected to the penalty under the Holy Roman Empire, but not in England. 185.76.230.249 (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smithfield,_London&oldid=1212280859"