Jump to content

Talk:Smithfield, London: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GimmeBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
75,273 edits
m Replacing {{fac}}
archive
Tag: Replaced
 
(18 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN
|action1date=23:03, 24 August 2008
|action1date=23:03, 24 August 2008
|action1result=listed
|action1result=listed
Line 10: Line 10:
|action2result=reviewed
|action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=234020951
|action2oldid=234020951

|action3=FAC
|action3date=16:28, 11 April 2009
|action3link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smithfield, London/archive1
|action3result=not promoted
|action3oldid=283164305


|topic=Geography
|topic=Geography
|currentstatus=GA
|currentstatus=GA
}}
}}
{{WPLondon|importance=mid|class=GA}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|
{{WikiProject Cities}}
{{WPUKgeo|class=GA|importance=}}
{{WikiProject England|importance=mid}}
{{featured article candidates|Smithfield, London}}
{{WikiProject London|importance=mid}}
{{PL showcase article}}
{{WikiProject UK geography|importance=low}}
==Demolition==
}}
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. [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 05:53, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
: I've started adding some content on the planned demolition threat and campaigns. [[User:DarTar|DarTar]] 14:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

== Executions? ==

Anyone know of any refs for the executions that occurred in Smithfield? [[User:ErgoSum88|ErgoSum88]] ([[User talk:ErgoSum88|talk]]) 10:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
: 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. --[[User:DarTar|DarTar]] ([[User talk:DarTar|talk]]) 11:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

== Good article review ==

'''[[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|GA]] review – see [[WP:WIAGA]] for criteria'''
{{#if:This article is very close, however there are a few problems that still need to be addressed.

'''Record of edits:'''
*Added link to [[English Reformation]], section 1, paragraph 4
*Added link to [[William Fitzstephen]] who gave the first quote in section 2
*Changed <the French> to [the French] according to [[MOS:#Brackets and parentheses]]
*Changed the gallery to be four images wide to avoid leaving the last picture on a row by itself|<hr width=50%>This article is very close, however there are a few problems that still need to be addressed.

'''Record of edits:'''
*Added link to [[English Reformation]], section 1, paragraph 4
*Added link to [[William Fitzstephen]] who gave the first quote in section 2
*Changed <the French> to [the French] according to [[MOS:#Brackets and parentheses]]
*Changed the gallery to be four images wide to avoid leaving the last picture on a row by itself|}}
#Is it '''reasonably well written'''?
#:A. Prose quality: {{GAList/check|aye}}
#:: {{#if:Well done here, reads quite well, however see the next comment:|Well done here, reads quite well, however see the next comment:|}}
#:B. [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|MoS]] compliance: {{GAList/check|nay}}
#:: {{#if: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.|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.<br>
#:: 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'' --[[User:DarTar|DarTar]] ([[User talk:DarTar|talk]]) 22:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)|}}
#Is it '''factually accurate''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]'''?
#:A. References to sources: {{GAList/check|aye}}
#:: {{#if:|{{{2acom}}}|}}
#:B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: {{GAList/check|nay}}
#:: {{#if: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.|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'' --[[User:DarTar|DarTar]] ([[User talk:DarTar|talk]]) 22:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
#:C. [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]]: {{GAList/check|aye}}
#:: {{#if:|{{{2ccom}}}|}}
#Is it '''broad in its coverage'''?
#:A. Major aspects: {{GAList/check|aye}}
#:: {{#if:|{{{3acom}}}|}}
#:B. Focused: {{GAList/check|???}}
#:: {{#if: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 ("[[wikt:ancient|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.|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 ("[[wikt:ancient|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 [http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Business/Markets/smithfield_meat_market.htm 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 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/england/somerset/7196443.stm similar market].'' --[[User:DarTar|DarTar]] ([[User talk:DarTar|talk]]) 22:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
#Is it '''[[WP:NPOV|neutral]]'''?
#:Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|aye}}
#:: {{#if:Well done staying neutral in the demolition section.|Well done staying neutral in the demolition section.|}}
#Is it '''stable'''?
#: No edit wars, etc: {{GAList/check|aye}}
#:: {{#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
#Does it '''contain [[Wikipedia:Images|images]]''' to illustrate the topic?
#:A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have [[Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Use_rationale|fair use rationales]]: {{GAList/check|aye}}
#:: {{#if: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.|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 [[WP:CAP|suitable captions]]: {{GAList/check|aye}}
#:: {{#if: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.|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.|}}
#'''Overall''':
#:Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|}}
#:: {{#if: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. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 08:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)|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. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 08:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)|}}
: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! [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


=== Re-review ===
== Boiling Alive ==


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. [[Special:Contributions/185.76.230.249|185.76.230.249]] ([[User talk:185.76.230.249|talk]]) 13:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
'''[[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|GA]] review – see [[WP:WIAGA]] for criteria'''
{{#if:The article has much improved since the last review! Well done!|<hr width=50%>The article has much improved since the last review! Well done!|}}
#Is it '''reasonably well written'''?
#:A. Prose quality: {{GAList/check|y}}
#:: {{#if:||}}
#:B. [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|MoS]] compliance: {{GAList/check|y}}
#:: {{#if: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.|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.|}}
#Is it '''factually accurate''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]'''?
#:A. References to sources: {{GAList/check|y}}
#:: {{#if:||}}
#:B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: {{GAList/check|y}}
#:: {{#if:Much improved since the last review, and your explanation of the uncited areas is certainly understandable. {{tl|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.|Much improved since the last review, and your explanation of the uncited areas is certainly understandable. {{tl|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. [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]]: {{GAList/check|y}}
#:: {{#if:||}}
#Is it '''broad in its coverage'''?
#:A. Major aspects: {{GAList/check|y}}
#:: {{#if:||}}
#:B. Focused: {{GAList/check|y}}
#:: {{#if:||}}
#Is it '''[[WP:NPOV|neutral]]'''?
#:Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
#:: {{#if: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.|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.|}}
#Is it '''stable'''?
#: No edit wars, etc: {{GAList/check|y}}
#:: {{#if:||}}
#Does it '''contain [[Wikipedia:Images|images]]''' to illustrate the topic?
#:A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have [[Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Use_rationale|fair use rationales]]: {{GAList/check|???}}
#:: {{#if: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.|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 [[WP:CAP|suitable captions]]: {{GAList/check|y}}
#:: {{#if: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.|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.|}}
#'''Overall''':
#:Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
#:: {{#if:Well done! This can now be called a Good Article! Keep up the good work, and consider a [[WP:PR|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. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 02:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)|Well done! This can now be called a Good Article! Keep up the good work, and consider a [[WP:PR|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. [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 02:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)|}}

Latest revision as of 18:27, 8 May 2024

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

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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smithfield,_London&oldid=1222914105"