Talk:Fleet Street

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Fleet Street has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 3, 2016 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know


I propose changing the word "synonym" in the last sentence of the introduction to "metonym." I think this would improve the accuracy of the statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Tie-In to Sweeney Todd[edit]

Shouldn't there be a reference to Sweeney Todd myth/musical?

Fleet Street Band[edit]

That section on the fleet street band seems awfully gushing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

British Press/Fleet Street[edit]

This whole article is a mess. It is mixing up the physical street with the abstract concept of the British Press.There are a lot of boring British anecdotes about the Press and dodgy geographical info done by Americans I would guess.I think it should be split in two.

I agree with this. This article reads like a low-grade "insiders" guide for tourist. I'm taking a cleaver to it now. Crashandspin (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Present Day[edit]

I think it would be more accurate to substitute the Daily Express building for the Daily Telegraph building as the headquarters of Goldman Sachs Andrewgconnor (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Goldmans is at the olfd Telegrah building and incorporates Mersey House within the development.Suthringa (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The two references to private banks (Hoare & Childs) ought to be together Andrewgconnor (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

History and location[edit]

The public house Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese has a page, seems obvious to have a link to it here Andrewgconnor (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC) (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, feel free to add one.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what the intended meaning is here "Temple Church and Saint Bride's and has seen many notable processions" What has seen many notable processions, Fleet st? Ambiguous and ungrammatical Andrewgconnor (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong year[edit]

Caption date looks suspect. ('Fleet Street pictured in 1952, with flags hung for the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II.')Coronation of QE2 was mid 1953 rpt 1953.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fleet Street/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 22:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  • "businesses became established" -"were" would fit better here.
  • You've used "prominent" twice, can you reword one?
I've taken the second one out, it's safe to assume any figure in the British press commemorated here would be notable anyway
  • "The street is mentioned in several works of fiction, such as the murderous barber Sweeney Todd and several works of Charles Dickens." -rep of "several" and Sweeney Todd is the character not the name of the work?
  • "Records show that Geoffrey Chaucer was fined two shillings for attacking a friar in Fleet Street." -when?
The source doesn't say, neither does this one other than hinting it might have been late 14th century. However, another source, which looks more reliable in terms of research about Chaucer, suggests it was a load of old baloney, which is why nobody can find a date. I've added that source and said as much
  • "Tanning and other industries declined sharply after the River Fleet was rerouted underground in 1766.[2] The street was widened during the late 19th century," -really nothing to be said in that hundred year gap?
19th century Fleet Street was run down a bit, industry had stopped due to the rerouting of the river, and tax on paper was stifling the one remaining asset. I've added a bit here, which explains in particular how the repeal of various laws in the mid 19th century allowed Fleet Street to explode as a printing dynasty.
  • Is that entire paragraph supported by Ref 20?
Which one's that? 20 is currently the start of the print industry (which is London Encyclopedia p 299, there are two columns a page and it's small print (see the Google Preview) so it has far more information than what's there. 21 is a lengthy tirade about Murdoch, Wapping etc. - again it's all there.

"In 1986, News International owner Rupert Murdoch caused controversy when he moved publication of The Times and The Sun away from Fleet Street to new premises in Wapping, East London. Murdoch believed it was impossible to produce a newspaper profitably on Fleet Street and the power of the print unions, the National Graphical Association (NGA) and the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades (SOGAT), was too strong (an opinion endorsed by the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher). All Fleet Street print staff were sacked and new staff from the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union were brought in to operate the presses at Wapping using modern computer-operated technology, rendering the power of the old unions obsolete. The resulting Wapping dispute featured violent protests at Fleet Street and Wapping that lasted over a year, but ultimately other publishers followed suit and moved out of Fleet Street towards Canary Wharf or Southwark. Reuters was the last major news outlet to leave Fleet Street in 2005." Is that all supported by the one source?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It should be - in fact the source is online here on page 300. I have the book, but that seems to be the same edition, but if you ever want to write about London streets or buildings, The London Encyclopedia (which this is) is THE place to start. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "is still based on Fleet Street.[24] The Secretariat of the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association is also based " -rep of "based"
  • "Child & Co, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Bank of Scotland claims to be the oldest continuous banking establishment as founded in 1580 and has been based at No.1 Fleet Street, adjacent to Temple Bar, since 1673." - I'd change to "Child & Co, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Bank of Scotland, claims to be the oldest continuous banking establishment in the United Kingdom. It was founded in 1580 and has been based at No.1 Fleet Street, adjacent to Temple Bar, since 1673."
Sure, why not? ;-)
Notable buildings
  • I would insert a double image of two churches here, side by side. Or at leats one image of a church and then one of a pub further down.
I've had a go at this, but my creative juices are running a little thin, can you take a look?
Fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "At No. 72 is a bust of the Irish journalist and MP TP O'Connor, constructed in 1934." -do you know the author?
I've found another source documenting this
  • "Amongst these include" -awkward, try "Among them are"
  • "John Senex owned a map store on Fleet Street.[" -a bit short and vague, can you elaborate a bit? What period was it?
1725-1736; I've expanded the article a bit
  • "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street" -why not link?
I was expecting it to be a disambiguation page, but on closer inspection, the link goes to the 1979 musical, while the prose talks about all three. I'm not sure the musical is more of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the 2007 film though, so maybe it ought to be a dab page. Any further ideas? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Review finished, good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Okay, I've addressed all the points, can you have another look? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Nicely done, good job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, it prompted me to add some more prose and flesh bits out, which is always good. I'm glad I found something better to do over Christmas than to eat lots of pudding and chocolate, gorge on wines, and rant on ANI. Hurrah. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)