Talk:Geography of Sheffield
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a WikiProject which aims to improve Sheffield related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. | |
[edit] Pollution
The reference [2] quoted in "Today Tinsley (48 parts per billion) still comes 9th in the UK pollution hotspots, while the city centre (43 parts per billion) remains above the government's recommended levels[2]." certainly hasn't been available since Jan 2006 and I can't find any other source for this information.
What's more the author of this part doesn't even state "48 parts per billion" of what !!!
Does anyone have any objection to removing this unsupported statement? (Or can anyone supply alternative, more explicit sources?). Wikityke 00:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Seven hills - myth?
I think we might have to remove the 'seven hills' claim. The only source I can find for counting hills in Sheffield is the J.G. Harston investigation which concludes that there are definitely eight, and there have never been seven hills making up Sheffield. It's a pity, but if the seven-hills claim is neither true nor verifiable then we can't really justify having it in the article. --VinceBowdren 10:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Greenspace percentage
Not quite convinced about the calculation that gets 61% green space. For one thing the quoted areas of woodland, public park and water might well overlap, and secondly you can't just add on national park area assuming that it is all green space. Does anybody know the source(s) for this green space claim? --VinceBowdren 09:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, found it [1]. --VinceBowdren 11:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
