Talk:Farringdon, Sunderland

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Farringdon, Sunderland (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 7 July 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Untitled

Please clean up the grammar and the structure of the article.

Please wikipedians from Sunderland, get your cameras out and get some pictures of the estate.--Rasillon 20:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page also not up for deletion if Plains Farm is? This page does not specify anything notable about Farringdon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forgotmynameagain (talk • contribs) 17:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a place though and all places are notable on wikipedia. Mackemfixer (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments in advance of the WP:GA review

Hi, I saw that this article had been nominated at WP:GAN and thought I would take a quick look. Here are a few notes on the citations, which I hope will help the nominator and the reviewer to improve the article further.

Both the "Politics" and the "Education" sections are entirely unreferenced.
The population given in the infobox also requires a reference.
I suggest that the following book is used as a reference for the "Geology" section (the text is available free of charge by clicking on the link):

Smith, D. B. (1994). Geology of the county around Sunderland. Nottingham: British Geological Survey. ISBN 9780118844987.

The 2011 Census data for St Chad's Ward can be found using the link below, although the ward also includes Middle Herrington and Broadmeadows:

UK Census (2011). "Local Area Report – (E05001166)". Nomis. Office for National Statistics.

Reference [17] (The Lost History of Farringdon) redirects to a 404 error page.
References [20], [21], [22] and [23] (Sunderland Echo via the British Newspaper archive) all require original publication dates, page numbers and issue numbers. The author(s) of each article should be given (if known).

I hope these comments and suggestions are useful. I will add {{citation needed}}, {{Unreferenced section}} and {{Not verified in body}} templates to the article where necessary. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done- Hello @Mertbiol thank you for your suggestions. All of the recommendations have been implemented--Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Street naming convention

@Sunderland Renaissance: first: its WP:OR built on the original analysis of a primary source. Second it also fails WP:V, for example "BEAUMARIS GARDENS... FARRINGDON" and "LAUNCESTON DRIVE... FARRINGDON" so "All street names in Farringdon begin with the letter A." can't be verified by the primary either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Direct sources for this are hard to find. Although I know this is true from on the ground, that isn't how it works on Wikipedia obviously. In that case, my suggestion is to simply remove the section as unnecessary trivia- --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be unnecessary trivia it would have to be sourced first, until then it can be removed as unsourced. Since the last time I removed an unsourced section you flipped out at me would you do the honors of removing it if you can't find a source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]