Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DrKiernan (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns over the article, but they are probably addressable.

Verifiability

• The article contains unsourced and unverifiable claims. For example, there are no sources on the stats in the infobox. In particular, there is no source for the population of the City Region. As I said before, it is counter-intuitive that the population of the city is larger than the entire county.
  • Ideally all the information in the infobox would also appear, with appropriate citations, in the article body. The Sheffield City Region is larger than the county, as it includes parts of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. I'm not sure that the concept of the city region has achieved wide enough recognition to be worth mentioning in the article (I note that none of the other regions mentioned in The Northern Way are mentioned in the respective city articles). I'm happy to remove this statistic from the infobox.—Jeremy (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've removed it. DrKiernan (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In the lead the claim that the GVA has grown by 60% in recent years is unsourced, and "recent years" is ambiguous.
  • I think that I inadvertently messed up the source for this; it looks to be a calculation that someone has done based on the source previously cited for the GVA data, which gives GVA from 1997 to 2006. The increase between these dates is a little under 60%. In trying to update the article I changed the reference for the GVA to give the 2007 figure. How about changing the sentence in the lead to "Sheffield's GVA (gross value added) has increased by 60% since 1997, standing at £9.2 billion in 2007" and then qualifying this in the Economy section by giving the 1997 figure (+ref) as well as the 2007 figure?—Jeremy (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds fine. DrKiernan (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. —Jeremy (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Are we certain that Egbert was the first Saxon to claim to be king of England? There are other possibilities listed here.
  • The other Bretwaldas are noted as having ruled all the kingdoms south of the Humber. Egbert not only achieved this, but also received submission from Northumbria, meaning that he ruled all of England. I'm trying to find a more modern source, but here is an example from a 19th century history book found on Google Books [1]: "He was crowned king of all Britain, and on the same day of his coronation, an edict was issued, that all the Saxons and Jutes should henceforth be designated English; and Britain itself bear the name of England." I don't think that any king before Egbert had claimed the title of King of England, but I'm going to do some more research.—Jeremy (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think he was the first of his line to be bretwalda, and it was his line who became the kings of England. So, saying he was the first sounds like the perspective of his descendants, who wanted to play up their own claim and downplay the power of the other Saxon bretwaldas, like the Mercian Offa, who probably had similar levels of power. Another problem is that the article focuses on his defeat of Northumbria as the point at which he ruled over the whole of England, but from another perspective it was his later defeat of the Cornish in the south-west that united what we now know as England. Perhaps "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that King Eanred of Northumbria submitted to King Egbert of Wessex at the hamlet of Dore (now a suburb of Sheffield) in 829. This event made Egbert the first Saxon to claim to be king of all England." could be "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that the submission of King Eanred of Northumbria to King Egbert of Wessex in 829 at the hamlet of Dore (now a suburb of Sheffield) was a key event in the unification of the kingdom of England under the House of Wessex." DrKiernan (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed your wording slightly to "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that King Eanred of Northumbria submitted to King Egbert of Wessex at the hamlet of Dore (now a suburb of Sheffield) in 829, a key event in the unification of the kingdom of England under the House of Wessex" and added a reference to qualify the second part of the statement.—Jeremy (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Dee-dar" is not listed in the OED, and I've never heard the term. How current is it? What makes http://www.viking.no/e/index.html a reliable source?
  • There's some discussion of this above. It definitely does not have as widespread use as terms like Geordie and Scouser.—Jeremy (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a verifiable but minor point, it may not deserve to be in the main article. Perhaps it could be moved to People of Sheffield? DrKiernan (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done—Jeremy (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Some £250 million was also invested in the city during 2005." is unsourced.
  • Removed. —Jeremy (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "There was a thriving goa trance scene in the early 1990s." is unsourced, and if it was a flash-in-the-pan craze, it is unlikely to be relevant for the main article anyway.
  • Gone. The music section gets a lot of drive-bys and is difficult to keep well sourced.—Jeremy (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The Tramlines Festival is "annual" but it has only run for one previous year. Phrasing such as "has run for two years" would be more appropriate here. Also, the 2010 event must have run already if it's held in July, so maybe this section needs re-wording?
  • How's "The Tramlines Festival was launched as an annual music festival in 2009"? I also got rid of date specific information here to allow the text to age better.—Jeremy (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great. DrKiernan (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Focus

• Would a mention of Domesday Book or the Harrowing of the North be appropriate? Was it a village or wasteland after the conquest?
  • There's a little bit more about the Domesday Book in the main article History of Sheffield. Sheffield's entry is vague and open to a few different interpretations. The reduction in value of Hallamshire is usually taken as evidence of the Harrying of the North, but I think that it might be difficult to find a reference that specifically mentions Sheffield.—Jeremy (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine. DrKiernan (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Again as I mentioned before,Whatever the Weather is given undue coverage.
  • When originally featured back in 2005 we didn't include a climate section at all; the rationale being that the climate section would basically say "Sheffield's climate is the same as that of the rest of north-eastern England", instead a climate section was added to the main article, Geography of Sheffield. When the article was a FARC one of the criticisms was that it didn't include a climate section. Someone responded to this by adding one, but unfortunately they did a straight copy/paste from the Met Office. It was this version that you previously objected to. During the recent FAC I had a go at cleaning this section up, but I am still of the opinion that the original decision to not have a climate section was a good one. Some further guidance here would be useful. —Jeremy (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you should keep the "Climate" section but cut at least half of the "Carbon footprint and climate change action" section. It could even be reduced by two-thirds. Once shortened, the section heading could be removed to make it a second paragraph of the climate section, or the remaining material could be merged into other sections. DrKiernan (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had a go at editing it down.—Jeremy (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Some of the "See also" links are duplicated in the navigation templates; so, are they really necessary?
  • I don't like navigation templates, so I'd prefer to see them go; but we can trim the See also links. The only one that I think is really necessary is the List of people from Sheffield, which, although in the navigation template, is not mentioned in the article. Some place articles devote a section to famous residents, but choosing who to include seemed to me to be OR, so instead we moved them all to a separate article. I think that we used to have this as a 'See also' link at the top of the Demography section; perhaps it can go back there? —Jeremy (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't worry about it too much; the duplication of a few links is a minor point. DrKiernan (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

•  Photo replaced with previous image_Will^Dow (Talk) 12:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC) There's no copyright tag on File:Sheffield Town Hall and Peace Gardens with The Wheel Of Sheffield In The Background.JPG.[reply]
• The source for File:Sheffield FC 1890.jpg is a dead link, and so the date cannot be verified. Even if it is from then, there is no proof of first publication before 2007, so it may not be in the public domain. As I said before, it probably doesn't matter but it may prevent the article from reaching FA status. I'd probably try replacing it with a better image, both in terms of quality and licensing, or remove it altogether as there are another two images in the same section anyway. DrKiernan (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Removed. —Jeremy (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I've added a few comments above. I'll try to address some of the issues that you raise later. —Jeremy (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. All the points are addressed, so I've passed the article as GA. DrKiernan (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]