Talk:Sneinton

This is a message for Bevo74

Hello, Firstly I would like to thank you for all your input on Wiki about Nottingham. I was curious about what Wiki had to say about my hometown Sneinton. After reading through the article I found everything there is pretty accurate except for 1 minor detail...

As a member of the Asian community here in Sneinton I can assure you there is not a large population of Bengalis. I know the majority of the Sub-Continent Asians that live here in Sneinton, and I can also honestly say that as far as I'm aware there are only 3 families of Bengalis that occupy Sneinton. One family lives on Ashfield Road, another on Hardstaff and the last on Skipton Circus. I can also provide you with their names but that wouldn't be appropriate to place there names on here. I'm not saying that I know everyone in Sneinton and I'm not ruling out the fact that just maybe there is some other Bengali family that I've never met before living around the corner from me. Regardless of how many Bengalis there are here the fact of the matter is... The hundreds of Asians from the Asian Sub Continent that you'll see here are in fact Pakistanis. The majority of businesses that are in Sneinton are also run by Pakistanis.

The reason I keep changing the Wiki article on Sneinton is because it’s giving a false statement about my hometown. The large population that occupy Sneinton are in fact of Pakistani origin.

I hope this helps and you've come to understand why I keep undoing your changes.

Kind Regards,

Amjad Hussain

Replied on talk page of Mish4800 Bevo74 (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added this citation to the article. In 2011, there were 62 Bangladeshis and 1,917 Pakistanis living in Sneinton. These represent 0.5% and 15.1% of the local population, respectively. Anxietycello (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed split to create new "Sneinton Festival" article

Hello all, I proposed a split of this article, to create a new article named Sneinton Festival, containing all of the information currently present in that section, with a brief summary and link remaining within this article. I suggest this because currently there is a lot of information in that section, and it is unbalanced relative to the info in other sections. I don't want to delete any of the text (and I suspect there is a lot more to write on the subject), so the clear answer is to give the topic it's own article in which it is free to expand. Any objections? Anxietycello (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I was going to suggest exactly that - but you should be keen to delete text if it tightens up the main article. In particular that list of annual themes is just gagging to be moved out into a dedicated Festival article. Probably two paragraphs on the Festival should be sufficient in this article. Le Deluge (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Split is complete. Cheers, Anxietycello (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Pre-GA general comments

Congratulations to Anxietycello and others who have worked on this article - always good to see people really get hold of an article, even if it's not one to grab the headlines like some. There's lots of good things here, but you might want to have a look at WP:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements for sections that have been missed - for instance a Government section could explain the relationship with Nottingham, and there's no mention of the parish which presumably (used to) exists based on St Stephen's? Another obvious area would be a bit more on the geography - including geology which tends to be quite important in explaining why the Industrial Revolution happened in some areas and not others. You should probably take a look at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing - I've had a quick run-through to de-fluff some of the language, it's more of a problem for WP:FA than WP:GA - but that's the objective, right? :-) There's some sourcing issues - for instance you shouldn't really be quoting bulletin boards (any sentence including the word "tragic" probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia, even if it is in footnotes) and it would be nice to get a proper source for that bomb map, it's obviously come from a newspaper so that should be the reference. That "all but 50 or so (bombs)" line is horrible - not only is it vague when precision should be possible, it's WP:Original research to deduce that yourself by looking at the map. I'd guess that a similar statement has been made in a proper source somewhere - as with the map itself, I'd imagine that local museums/libraries may be able to help, or ask on bulletin boards for help on finding the paper sources. It's not too far off though.Le Deluge (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the feedback and for the alterations you made. I'll work on incorporating your suggestions over the next few days. Anxietycello (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I've now added all the standard WP:UKTOWNS sections but some could do with bulking out a bit to paragraph length, most notably the Demographics and Government. Probably the best way of getting an idea of what's required is to look at some UK geo featured articles - there's a series of Manchester suburbs in there which should be fairly comparable and give you some links to the appropriate bit of census etc. The government section should give some idea of the history, presumably it was part of Notts and then was subsumed into the city at some point. Just having another look at things, Sneinton's Economy section is all about the market but not about how people earn their living - I imagine there was once quite a lot of industry that has now been lost (the Suburban Railway seems to have primarily been built to serve brickworks) but I've eg seen a mention to a Virgin call centre somewhere round there.

You should take a look at the WP Physics Cheatsheet to get an idea of what reviewers look for. The obvious thing at the moment is that you should have at least one reference per paragraph before you even think of sending it for GA, with all quotes, statistics and "flaky" bits needing specific inline references. The dragon's Santa hat is an example of the latter, although I'd almost leave it in just so that a reviewer can get it removed, they like to think they're Doing Something! I would note that the trend is for GA reviewers to expect more references than just one per paragraph - and for FA you pretty much need a reference for every sentence or two and it's easier to just reference as you go along. It's tedious, but it's ultimately what Wikipedia is all about.

You'll notice I've stopped fixing the images at 300px - it's generally a bad idea as it stops the images scaling appropriately on eg mobile devices. I'd certainly be tempted to crop the dragon photo so that it had more dragon and less tree, but it would be better still if you could go out on a sunny day and take a better one - compare the existing photo with something like this one, think which would work better at thumbnail size. Still, it's getting there.Le Deluge (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks of your edits, Le Deluge, you added a lot of really great stuff. I especially like the transport section and the additions to the culture and notable people sections. I'd never heard of the Trade gallery! You mentioned "nearby articles" - is there a tool for locating geographically close articles?

However, I don't think that the article warrants a demography or government section. The place isn't big enough... I liked the way the demographic evolution was tied in with the history section, I thought it fitted in well. E.g. low pop at the start of the industrial revolution, high pop at the end. And the ethnicity fitted well next to the part about migration. As for government, Sneinton is currently governed by the city council. There's nothing more to say on that, and the section will only ever be a one or two sentences, which doesn't look very good. Also, I'm not sure about that landmarks section. Green's Mill is definitely a landmark, sure, but it's pretty much the only one in Sneinton. I think the Dragon is too new to be recognisable to most people (I think it goes better in a public art section - with more to follow on other sculptures). As for the community facilities, I think that's a misleading title why not keep it parks and recreation within the geo section? As the London article does.

I completely agree with you comments on references, I do think it needs more (and it is a bit tedious!) I agree the santa hat part is flaky, but I somehow couldn't bring myself to take it out... I uploaded this Dragon photo for a better thumbnail, only to spot that Google images lied to me about the licence. And fair point about the image sizes on mobile. Anxietycello (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think all I can say is bear with me and give the standard sections a go. It's a bit like the reason why most websites end up looking like Amazon. It's partly because it's one of many designs that works - and partly because of all the designs that work, that's the one that people are familiar with so they spend more time doing what they came to do and less time figuring out the interface. Working on a single article it's harder to see the benefits of standardisation per WP:UKTOWNS across multiple articles, and I understand it can feel like a bit of a straitjacket. But see what they've done with the Manchester suburb FAs - they're a better model than London which is always a bit of an exception. The demography section was the hardest to split out because I understand how well population tells the story of the 19th century expansion. Of all of them, that's the change that I'm most OK with reversing - but equally the diversity of modern Sneinton is best told through the current census returns. Have a go at doing a demography section like Peterborough or one of the other FAs (actually I don't particularly like the way those Manc ones do demography particularly all the comparative stuff and I'd lose the tables, the historical data from visionofbritain would be much better presented as a graph). A demography doesn't depend on how big the numbers are, the census spits out lots of detail. As a compromise, perhaps the demography section could be moved straight after the history section as a follow-on from it?

Same with the landmarks section - it's there to encourage you to fill it up a bit. If the mill gets its own article, it (and the mill house) deserves a sentence or two here. I also suggest this map of listed buildings for inspiration - the likes of the Lord Nelson and the Booth museum count as landmarks. Personally I wouldn't go toooooo overboard on the public art, except those that have third-party notability like the Grade II war memorial and Bendigo monument (if it's within the boundaries). I must admit I'd assumed that the Newark road marked the western limit of Sneinton, but English Heritage clearly regard the canal/A60 as the western boundary - which means that the Transport section needs to talk about both the canal and London Road station (plus associated buildings). Plus it implies both Meadow Lane and Lady Bay Bridge are in Sneinton? On reflection the Geography section needs to do a better job of defining the boundaries. As another example, there's no mention of Dales ward - how well does that "fit" as a definition of Sneinton? Carlton Rd seems to be the normal northern boundary but for instance Rightmove regard the Grade II terraces on the north side of Victoria Park as Sneinton? "Modest" listed buildings may be debatable as "landmarks" but they make for great photographs for giving the distinctive flavour of an area (and regardless of geographical nitpicking, those terraces would be fine as representative of old Sneinton if there's no good ones in Sneinton proper these days). The lace attics at 19/21 Belvoir Hill would make a great illustration for the History or Economy sections.

On government - see those Manc articles for an idea, you talk about the history not just of the city council, but the parish, any Victorian Boards of Health, and there's usually been various boundary changes to the Westminster constituency (not many in this case, but the history goes back to 1295). Yes it's a bit dull and it's only a para or two, but it's got to be done and at least it's usually easy to reference. The wiki layer on Google Maps was the geo reference of choice until they pulled it last August, the wiki layer on geonames.org (not the default layer) is not as nice, but it's usable and accessible from the Geohack page you get when clicking on the coords at top-right. Le Deluge (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Another thing. I was a bit surprised to see a Nottingham suburb twinned with a major city like Granada. I've had a poke around and can't find any (reliable, non-Wiki-derived) online reference to this, in fact Nottingham as a whole seems to be cooling on the whole idea of twinning. I'm tempted to remove the whole twinning thing until there's some reliable source for it, it just has the feel of subtle vandalism. Can a local confirm one way or the other? Le Deluge (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, you make some really good points there. I'll see how we can work on the sections as you have laid out. Thanks again, you've been a big help.

As for the boundaries, I see you're having the same trouble that I did in defining exactly where Sneinton is... It seem there is no agreed definition. I don't really like that "Dales ward" definition you linked to. I think that's an electoral boundary, and not particularly a cultural one. It seems to gift the Sneinton Elements area to the neighbouring St Ann's ward (which on that map is way too big, and actually also includes large parts of the city centre). Carlton Road is definitely considered the northern boundary. Rightmove has attempted to increase the sellability of those houses by associating them with Sneinton, because they actually lie in St Ann's (which is less desirable). It is very confusing, and the boundaries do seem somewhat fluid. This census map has a very jagged boundary darting back and forth across Carlton Road. I personally prefer this map produced by Sneinton Alchemy - which handily has a Creative Commons licence. Can we upload that one? It has a simple, well defined boundary that follows traceable physical objects. It includes all of the residential areas commonly thought of as Sneinton (it was put to a public vote!), as well as Sneinton Market. Meadow Lane and Lady Bay Bridge aren't part of Sneinton, they are in the city centre and Lady Bay, respectively. I'm not sure about the Island development - it's currently brownfield, but I guess it's close enough to be considered Sneinton (?). Gem 106, the BBC TV studios, BioCity Nottingham, an NHS walk-in centre and the London Road train station (currently a gym) have all been built on the brownfield, but there's still a lot of empty space, making it a sort of 'unclaimed' part of town.

I agree about the doubtful veracity of the twinning. I thought it seemed a bit iffy too. If it was a vandal, it's a clever vandal, because the Grenada article mentions Sneinton. But seeing as I couldn't find a source either, it's probably best to just remove it. If it turns out it's true, and we can source it, it can always be added back later. Anxietycello (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've had a quick go at doing the boundaries, and nuked the twinning. On closer inspection, that EH reference seems to have just been Britishbuildings.co.uk making up a location, it's not in the original. Even if the electoral ward is a bit off, formal boundaries still matter and need to be mentioned - it'd be nice to see a map of the parish based on St Stephens. I have a nagging feeling that there's a website for that, can't think where now. Having said all that, the Alchemy map is a good find and I don't see why it can't be uploaded. Even if London Rd and the river aren't technically Sneinton (what about that industrial bit down by the river?), their proximity is so fundamental to why Sneinton came to be that the article really ought to talk about them. Colwick marshalling yard too. Surely almost by definition bridges are usually in two different areas? Half of Westminster Bridge is in Waterloo etc. I've also had a quick go at reformatting Colwick, Bakersfield, Carlton and St Ann's - if you ever get bored of Sneinton then St Ann's is a)probably the most interesting and b)in the worst state, it's got some POV issues. Anyway, give me a shout if you need me but I really ought to be getting on with other things now. Cheers.Le Deluge (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)