Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Sheffield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] History of Sheffield

self-nomination (I am a major contributor). Though it is not for me to comment on whether this is well written, I do think that it meets the FA criteria of being comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. —JeremyA (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment This poor nom has gone more than two days without comments. No support or oppose yet from me, because I haven't looked closely enough. The prose definitely needs auditing, judging from the lead. Comprehensiveness requirement seems to be satisfied, however. (Speaking of "however", avoid over-using it.) Refs seem to spell out attribution information properly. I'll try to edit the prose more myself, and get back to you with others concerns. Marskell 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a tentative support, pending more feedback from others, and specifically more prose work. A first full read-through is good. Marskell 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I like the changes that you made to the introduction (I am regularly guilty of overuse of however, although I am not the originator of the one that you removed). I am happy to try to address any further concerns that you might have. —JeremyA (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments keeping in mind that I know nothing whatsoever about the subject:

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on the article. I will reply to each comment individually below. —JeremyA (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The etymology of the name is mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon section, but it's not clear to me when the name was first applied to the area (between the 6th and 9th centuries?) That would also be a good thing to put in the lead. Along the same lines, is it known what the Romans called the area?

These are good questions, which would be great to answer—but they don't call them 'The Dark Ages' for nothing! The article is trying to balance two different, but very closely related histories: the history of the settlement called Sheffield, and the history of the entire area that is now within the boundaries of the City of Sheffield. So when I state at the end of the Romans section 'it is unlikely that the settlement that grew into Sheffield existed at this time' I am referring to the village that eventually grew and absorbed the surrounding villages/hamlets. Sheffield (along with slight variants in spelling) is the only known name of that core village. I have narrowed the date of the founding of that settlement as far as I can without going into the realm of original research—it is after the Anglo-Saxons (probably Angles) came into this area (likely the 6th century) but before the Danes arrived in the late 9th century. Whether or not any of those other villages/hamlets existed before the settlement called Sheffield was founded is unknown, and how soon after it was founded that settlement gained the name Sheffield is also unknown (I think that the Domesday Book is the earliest surviving printed use of the word).

So, to answer your specific questions, the lead gives 'the second half of the 1st millennium AD' as the founding of the settlement called Sheffield—this is my slightly less specific way of saying 6th–9th centuries because at that point we have not yet qualified the use of those dates. As for what the Romans called this area, I don't think that this is known... I don't think anyone even knows what the Roman fort at Templeborough was called (the best suggestion that I have read is Ad Fines).

• • The last sentence in the lead, maybe replace 'staff' with 'workers' or 'personnel' - I just don't normally think of steelworks as places that have 'staff'.

Done — I changed staff to people

• • Could have more explanation of the reason and significance of the stone circles, as well as size estimates. ('Large and small' doesn't really give the reader any scale.)

I think that what we have is probably the best that we can do without going into the realm of original research. As I don't have access to any detailed research on the stone circles I can't further qualify 'large and small', so I have removed that wording.

• • '...the Pennine tribe called the Brigantes' - link or explain Pennine.

Done

• • 'it is unlikely that the settlement that grew into Sheffield existed at this time.' - as in, it was not continuously populated?

see my answer to your first question above.

• • 'Addy (1888)[16]' - this is kind of awkward reference syntax. If there's a reason we should see Addy's name in the text (noted scholar studying the region?), then that should be explained; otherwise it can probably be left to the footnote, keeping only the year in the text.

Done — I used Addy's name to avoid introducing any weasel-like terms. Addy is well known within the realm of Sheffield history, but I'm not sure how well known he is beyond that. I have changed the sentence to 'Sheffield historian S.O. Addy...'

• • 'a son, who died without issue.' - not sure what that means. Without an heir? In the same paragraph, who's Roger de Builli and is it important that William had his land as well as de Busli's? I feel like I'm missing an important fact here.

Done I've been reading too many Victorian texts :-) It means childless, so 'without an heir' is probably a better wording. I think that the mention of 'Roger de Builli' is a mistake (Roger de Builli == Roger de Busli), so I have removed it.

• • 'In 1180 Beauchief Abbey was established 4 miles southwest of the town of Sheffield in Beauchief, which is now a suburb of the city.' - this sentence is just stuck in at the end of the Anglo-Saxon section rather contextlessly; it could use some fleshing out.

Done — I moved this sentence here when I was trying to reorganise the article to make it flow more chronologically. I think that to flesh it out further would disrupt the flow too much at that point, so I have removed it and left a link to Beauchief Abbey in the 'See also' section.

• • In the medieval section we start calling this the 'manor of Hallamshire'; the preceding section made reference to the manor of Hallam, but also discussed works that referred to it in terms recognizable as related to 'Sheffield'. Do the two sets of terms refer to different things? Is 'Hallamshire' something like 'the greater Sheffield area'?

Nobody really knows what Hallamshire is/was. In the linked Hallamshire article I have tried to flesh out a little what is meant by the term. The Domesday Book refers to Hallam and Sheffield as different manors, but then adds that Sheffield had once been part of Hallam. I believe that the earliest surviving printed use of the word as Hallamshire may be the text referred to in reference #22. Possibly it would be a good idea to say that in the article. Whilst I think that it is important to mention Hallamshire in this article, I have tried to use the term as little as possible because it is so poorly defined. This becomes difficult in the 'Mediaeval' section because it almost seems like historians use Hallamshire and Sheffield interchangeably during this period; but because I am not sure whether that is really the case, I have used whatever word my source uses, which in that section happens to be Hunter who seems to have been very attached to the term Hallamshire.

• • There could be a bit more larger political background behind the queen's imprisonment, though maybe this is too long to get into very much.

Whilst the fact of her imprisonment in Sheffielders is of note, I think that the politics that put her there is better covered by other articles. We link to the Mary I of Scotland article, which gives a fairly in-depth account of her life, imprisonment, and death.

Done I have expanded this section a little to read: In 1569 George Talbot, the sixth Earl of Shrewsbury, was given charge of Mary Queen of Scots. Mary was regarded as a threat by Elizabeth I, and had been held captive since her arrival in England in 1568.[26] Talbot brought Mary to Sheffield in 1570, and she spent most of the next 14 years imprisoned in Sheffield Castle and its dependent buildings.

• • ' replaced in some part by Georgian elegance, but also by Victorian squalor.' - likely true, but sounds a bit judgmental.

I'm not quite sure what to do about this. Whilst the editor that added this has maybe been a little effusive, it does provide a nice bridge between the mediaeval section and the industrial section so I don't want to lose it completely. Any suggestions for improvement would be welcome

You could do something dull like 'much of the city was rebuilt during the Georgian and Victorian eras' and expand on it in the next section. Opabinia regalis 04:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Done — JeremyA (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• • 'The city's early success in steel production involved long working hours, in unpleasant conditions that offered little or no safety protection.' - needs a bit of rewording; cities aren't the sorts of things that work long hours or need safety protections.

Done

• • 'Dr. W. H. Hatfield, is credited with the development...' - this is a very long, comma-filled, hard to parse (because of all the parentheses and appositives), sentence.

Done — I have broken this up into smaller sentences and removed technical details that are not really necessary within this article.

• • 'The 1980s saw the worst of the run-down of Sheffield's industries (along with those of many other areas in the UK), culminating with the 1984/85 miners' strike.' - is there a word missing here? Or do you mean 'the collapse of Sheffield's industries...'?

Done — I replaced 'run-down' with 'collapse'

• • '(the original tram system was closed in 1960)' - I don't think we know at this point that there was an original tram system.

Done — I have changed this to 'an earlier tram system had closed in 1960'

• • 'highest ranking area outside London for overall wealth,' - so what are the major current industries or wealth-generating activities here, besides steel? The next sentence mentions office space, but what industries or companies are using it? Opabinia regalis 17:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is a relatively recent addition to the article. Personally I don't like these kind of claims in articles ('X city is the whatever-ist at this or that thing'), so I am quite happy to remove this paragraph completely.

I don't like those rankings either, especially since they change constantly depending on who did the study and what year it is, but some indication of the current major industries would be useful, I think. Now it seems strange to me that this place would have such a high level of wealth. Opabinia regalis 04:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Done -- I have noted that over 80% of the city's workforce are in the public services and financial sector. —JeremyA (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support surprisingly interesting ;) Opabinia regalis 04:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose References should be formatted to a consistent bibiliographic style, including publisher for all sources, and author and publication date when available. For example (there are others), numerous news sources do not indicate the publication date. If you aren't familiar with a consistent bibliographic style, you can see WP:CITE/ES or use the cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. You are correct that I should have checked that all citations use the cite family of templates. I have edited the article to correct this. —JeremyA (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Done - I have now also found all original publishers of cited out-of-print books. —JeremyA (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Struck, much better—although the cite templates aren't a panacea. I'm not sure you should have used the Work parameter instead of Publisher for websources (a difference in italics only). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - 1a. It's much better than when I last reviewed it (was it a FAC or a FARC?), but you need to get an unfamiliar copy-editor onto the job.
  • "in what would become the City of Sheffield would not occur" - can you avoid the ungainly repetition?
  • "European "Common market" (now European Community)" - something's wrong here. At the very least, upper-case M is required and the quotes should be removed. Probably "the Common Market (now the EU)" is better.
  • "urban regeneration schemes aimed to fill the economic and geographic gaps left by the shut-down of the factories". So they aimed, but did they succeed? Begs the question. What are "geographic gaps"? "Closure" better than the informal "shut-down".
  • "Although Sheffield is producing more steel per year than at any other time in its history,[2] the industry is now less noticeable, as it has become highly automated and employs far fewer people than in the past." Remove "per year" and "in the past" as redundant. Can you find a better expression than "noticeable"? What exactly does it mean here? As you drive down the main street? As you look at the stats for the city's economy? Vague. Tony 23:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I hope that I have fixed the issues that you raise above:

• • • "but significant growth in the number and size of settlements in what would become the City of Sheffield" -> "but significant growth in the settlements that are now incorporated into the city"
    • "European "Common market" (now European Community)" -> "European Economic Community" (I think that this was the correct official name for the organisation in the time-period that is being referred to.
    • I have completely rewritten the sentences that you critique in your final two comments. I decided to remove the claim of there being more steel production now than in the past because, although I have read this claim elsewhere, I have never seen it backed up by numbers leading me to suspect that it is a myth. My edit left me with "Starting in the late 1980s urban and economic regeneration schemes have transformed the city." —JeremyA (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some substantial copy edits to the rest of the article, and I have also requested copy edits from a couple of sources. —JeremyA (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: defiantly the best "History of City" article I have read, puts History of Birmingham, History of Manchester and History of London to shame. It's comprehensive and well written without being just a collection of factoids. A couple of minor points you may want to look at:
  • Penultimate paragraph of Early History "... and by 51 the Brigantes had submitted to the clientship of Rome ...". Is clientship really the best expression for this?
  • The first paragraph of Mediaeval Sheffield would be improved if the sources for the facts were made explicit.

Note: I created this article in May 2005 by extracting text from an over long History section of the Sheffield page, and I've edited it occasionally since. Andreww 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Pretty much all of the Mediaeval Sheffield section can be sourced to Hunter and Vickers—I have added some more references to make this clearer. —JeremyA (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)