Talk:Rookery (slum)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 February 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbuec2. Peer reviewers: Tamashi2314, TheWetWonder.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Interest in adding information on Mayhew's work
[edit]Hello, I am working on this Wiki for a class, and I have interest in adding some of Mayhew's more statistical analysis of the London slums. I think it will bulk up this article significantly. The works I am looking to cite are both Mayhew's "London labour and London slums", and Anne Humphrey's "Dickens and Mayhew on the London Poor." I am considering adding a section titled "The People of the Rookery" or something of that matter. Please contact me with any concerns or suggestions. Jbuec2 (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The main paragraph of the article says that Dickens got a tour of some of London's rookeries in 1850 and says they found their way into several of his stories. The implication is that Dickens wasn't aware of them or at least hadn't seen them up close until the tour. Then the article cites some of Dickens' books that mention the rookeries as if that illustrates that he learned enough about the rookeries from the 1850 tour to write about them. The only problem is that the citations are all from books written well BEFORE the 1850 tour. This greatly undermines the implication that he didn't know enough about the rookeries to include them in his stories until 1850.
Rhino (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I think the Neil Gaiman reference should go: it is arbitrary and not the only or even foremost mention of the place in contemporary literature. And it somehow suggests Gaiman is equal to Dickens - that might be regarding the reading pleasure for many, but disregards Dickens long and strong involvement in social issues of his time compared to a random later reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CA:A3E4:9D:C0EA:7CE4:4178:D32B (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)