Talk:Great Sheffield Flood

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Great Sheffield Flood is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sheffield Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sheffield 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.SheffieldWikipedia:WikiProject SheffieldTemplate:WikiProject SheffieldSheffield articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Non-tropical / Floods Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Floods task force (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 11, 2014, March 11, 2015, March 11, 2019, and March 11, 2024.

Untitled[edit]

I've removed the sentence "The flood resulted in more deaths than any other disaster in Britain before or since." because this is contradicted by List of natural disasters in the United Kingdom. Thryduulf 07:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The layout of this article is well done as well as the content. Some grammatical errors that could be considered are as follows: The day after the flood, Sheffield was quickly supply(ed)ing with aid where ever needed.

On 18 March 1864, the Mayor called another meeting, but this time it was for anyone who could afford it to give up (donate) one days wage to give to those in need.

Because the word ‘landslipping’ is red, it might be a good idea to explain a little of what that might be. It is somewhat self-explanatory, but if an elementary student were reading this article they probably wouldn’t understand what it meant. Also, it might look neater if the references didn’t repeat, but just had the one footnote for the multiple use of one source. Otherwise, it looks really good, great job :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFriesen (talk • contribs) 20:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

This article is fluent and well organized. Something that could be changed to further improve it is that you stated the variety of recorded numbers for deaths, yet still picked a specific set of data to report. This information could be better expressed as an approximation rather than a set number because of all the variety within the records. Also there are some places in the article that need some punctuation. Other than that the article as straightforward and informative, well done. Cmeyer8 (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this article, I have a few points that I would like to identify to the author. First, I would like to know, what sort of engineering reforms did the collapse of the dam cause? It is referenced, but not further explained in the article. Another aspect that is not expanded upon is the concept of landslipping. I believe I can deduce the meaning of the concept, yet others may not be able to. I like the two pictures in the article, they are very effective for conveying the most pertinent visuals in the smallest amount of space. The sections on the reason why the dam was needed and the collapse of the Dam were written well, and I found those sections to be well done. Referencing is well done and very thorough. The article has no issues of neutrality, and is generally well done. My main suggestion would be to just expand on the Aftermath and Rebuilding areas to outline the concepts such as landslipping and the engineering reforms.SemperInvictus (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better map possible?[edit]

The map shown is 120 years out of date by the time of the flood, and fails to show the location of the dam in relation to Sheffield; I will have a scout round for a more applicable map if I can. I hope no one would object to this edit? Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I have found a map from 1832. Still too early but better than the existing map. Waugh Bacon (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of "flood"[edit]

The title name is presented to show "flood" as part of a proper noun and this is not correct. As for as I can tell it is considered a "Great Flood" so the Great Flood of Sheffield would be more correct.

Please note:

There has been an on-going controversy on the capitalization of words in a title that normally are not capitalized. With few exceptions the word flood is not capitalized throughout Wikipedia as evidenced at [[Category:Floods]] and [[Category:Floods in the United States]]. [[Category:Floods in Canada]] list 19 like named titles (flood used in the title not as a first word or proper noun) and of these 6 capitalize "flood".

Wikipedia policy:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Capitalization states, "However, for names of Wikipedia articles and of section headings in articles and pages, generally only the first word and all proper names are capitalized in titles.". Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format states, "Use lowercase, except for proper names". This supposedly narrows the criteria to determining if a word is part of such a "proper noun" or named as such as provided by reliable sources as the common name. the word "flood", in this instance, is clearly not part of a proper noun.

I am always a proponent of using the common name when possible (exceptions for avoiding ambiguity) otherwise policy and title consistency should be followed. Otr500 (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great Sheffield Flood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]