Talk:Brick Lane Market

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2012. Further details are available here.

neutral point of view

Mentioning "'hip' vinyl records" and "fashion police" are not npov.

Agreed. But this is simply an appalling piece in general for what is an iconic, and much-loved London market. Quick fix now, but it's on my photo list for next time I get up early on a Sunday. Tarquin Binary 06:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, POV stuff removed, blanded it out some, but will try to fill this out properly some time soon. Haven't been down there in ages, so prefer to do some 1st-hand checking first. Tarquin Binary 07:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transport

To classify both Aldgate East and Liverpool Street as the nearest stations is misleading. Aldgate East is 0.7 miles away and Liverpool Street is 0.9 miles away. Hence Aldgate East is the closer station. Franiel242 (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A difference of two tenths of a mile is not very significant. Besides, Liverpool Street is on the Circle and Metropolitan lines; Aldgate East is on the District line. Liverpool Street is very likely to be more convenient for those who want to go north, or into central London, on the Tube. (FWIW, both stations are on the Jubilee line.) -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 14:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verification

The article relies too much on personal experience and recollected rumors. The next stage is to base it on reliable sources. There must be hundreds of pages written about the Brick Lane Market through the years. Historical info is also needed. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 14:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Class assignment

A few students from Cornell University will be adding to this article as part of a class assignment in the next week. More specifically, we're providing a history of the market, a description of vendors, nearby attractions, transportation around the market, and general information about the market's layout. One of us also has pictures taken while at the market. If anyone would like to help us with any editing or formatting issues that might come up, that would be great. --JP Comm (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)Joey236-- (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you guys did really good in linking he page to the other pages. You guys should expand more on what things hey sell in each thing. Also if you could talk to someone who has visited of lives there it will be very helpful. --JP Comm (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The assignment talk page is at User talk:D4n2elle/BrickLaneMarket. – Fayenatic London 17:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Note: The following comments before my own were added to this page from the drafting space by User:Joey236 on 4 October, 2012. – Fayenatic London 17:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Excellent justification of this topic - being an important cultural enclave in London and the fact that the current article is very short. LeshedInstructor (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is fantastic that you have first hand photographs that you can upload to the Wikimedia Commons. If you are putting up a side box, try to find out similar side boxes about famous locations and follow their structure. LeshedInstructor (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think some books on the history of London (probably with a focus on more modern-day) would have good resources. Travel books for London often include a section on Brick Lane. Quainiac (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion! Joey236 (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list of references looks really good, and I think it will be really good that you're using the pictures that Danielle has of the market. Additionally, you may consider looking at travel blogs etc for more pictures, perhaps if they have seasonal changes, or if it's changed over time Jrb374 (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks pretty good. Note that Wikipedia articles should not have a section "introduction". Instead, they have a lead section that summarizes the rest of the article (which means it should not introduce new information). Please make sure your article follows that style. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad start. One aspect that concerns me a little is that it's very heavy on primary sources - a lot of the information about individual tenants and companies is sourced to their own websites, or to the company who operate the market, etc. The markets are quite prominent, and it should be possible to find secondary sources discussing them. (I'm glad to see the LRB article, for example - admittedly it's sourcing a minor point, but it's the sort of external source you want) From a historical angle, was there any modern Brick Lane market as such pre-2004? The outline is quite vague, but articles such as this suggest there was something there in the 1980s. (I don't know the area very well) It's also not clear why these modern markets opened - spillover from Spitalfields? Andrew Gray (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inviting me to comment on the draft article -- I'm sorry I didn't notice it until later. Thank you all for your hard work, and well done for getting a lot of things right. However, I think we need to make several changes to the way it fits into the encyclopedia:

I considered whether Truman Markets stands alone as a separate article from Old Truman Brewery, and concluded that it does.
However, the page Brick Lane Market should not be redirected to Truman Markets, because it covers a wider area. It's fine to include the bicycle theft story in Wikipedia, but as I understand it, that relates to some (past?) activities in the street market area, not within the Truman site. The same goes for the "Early history" section. I therefore propose that Brick Lane Market should be reinstated as an article.
Rather than split the current content between those two pages, it could well be better to make Truman Markets the main section of the Brick Lane Market page. If other editors agree that this would be desirable, I suggest that I or another admin should merge the history (i.e. the database of previous versions) of the two pages.
Backyard Market and Sunday UpMarket are too small to be justifiable as separate pages. They should be merged into the main coverage of Truman Markets, whichever page that ends up on.
The "Nearby attractions" section is not appropriate in Wikipedia. There is no need to have several lines about each subject, when a full article can be reached by a single click. It would be OK to condense this to a very short list of links within a "See also" section, with just a few words about each one. E.g. "* Christ Church, Spitalfields: nearby church, built 1729, now includes an art gallery and concert hall". Delete the citation given, as it does not have a current page about the church -- although that website does have a page about Brick Lane Market [1]. Delete the Gherkin and Finsbury Circus which are not really very close.

Reactions? – Fayenatic London 19:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody commented, so I went ahead with all the above changes. I also merged the info on each market, as there were three lists of the five Truman markets:[2] a too-detailed list in the introduction, one paragraph each under "Modern markets", and then a section each under "Vendors/markets". – Fayenatic London 19:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK review

This is a good start. You can nominate your work at WP:DYK for front page exposure. Note that this nom has to be done within five days of the move (so, within five days of today). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting fixes per the MOS

I fixed the following items per the Manual of Style (MOS):

Captions that aren't complete sentences should not have terminal punctuation (MOS:CAPTION)
Spaced hyphens were converted to en dashes (MOS:DASH)
Section headings should not repeat the title of the article, and they're rendered in Sentence case, not Title Case. (MOS:HEAD)
Bulleted lists should not have blank lines between entries. (MOS:LIST, specifically WP:BULLETLIST)
Sections should be nested properly, a L3 heading should be used after a L2; L4 headings should not be used next. (MOS:ACCESS)

Imzadi 1979 → 06:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]