Talk:Smithfield, London

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. 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)

Executions?

Anyone know of any refs for the executions that occurred in Smithfield? 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. --DarTar (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article review

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:

• 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

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)

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)

   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)

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)

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)