This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New River (London) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pollution of much of London's existing water supply by industries that had developed in the Lee's downstream reaches was the principal driver for its construction. [1]
I removed this factual error. I'm not a usual wiki editor so I don't know if I'm following the rules. The Lea was not polluted in the early 17th century when the New River was completed (the New River did not take water from the Lea for the first few decades). Even in the 19th century, when the Lea became very polluted, the bigger problem was sewage from upriver communities, not industrial pollution, as most of the industry was built along the tidal back rivers in West Ham that which were not used by either the New River company or the East London Waterworks Company. I'll try and improve the article and provide all the references necessary to back up this information in the future. ( Cljim22 ( talk) 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC))
References
Article isn't very clear on exactly where the river ends. One line says Stoke Newington, another says it merely goes below ground here to reappear in Islington. The linked-to map shows it ending in Clerkenwell. A river cannot merely 'end', so perhaps a paragraph on what becomes of it? I'd guess either it enters the sewer system, goes underground until it empties in to the Thames, or else is entirely sucked up for drinking water? Grunners ( talk) 22:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
References
Thanks to GrubbingEngineer for the recent edits. I was wondering: I think the recreated Islington bit (St Pauls Rd to Canonbury Rd, very nice) may be called New River Walk. Is it worth including this if it is verifiable? (If there is a sign I could walk there at lunchtime and take a photo!) I worry that it is a bit de minima and also that it risks causing confusion with the New River Path of which it is only a tiny part. I am not about to start fisticuffs over this but I did wonder what others think? Best wishes to all, DBaK ( talk) 09:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
New River (London) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Pollution of much of London's existing water supply by industries that had developed in the Lee's downstream reaches was the principal driver for its construction. [1]
I removed this factual error. I'm not a usual wiki editor so I don't know if I'm following the rules. The Lea was not polluted in the early 17th century when the New River was completed (the New River did not take water from the Lea for the first few decades). Even in the 19th century, when the Lea became very polluted, the bigger problem was sewage from upriver communities, not industrial pollution, as most of the industry was built along the tidal back rivers in West Ham that which were not used by either the New River company or the East London Waterworks Company. I'll try and improve the article and provide all the references necessary to back up this information in the future. ( Cljim22 ( talk) 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC))
References
Article isn't very clear on exactly where the river ends. One line says Stoke Newington, another says it merely goes below ground here to reappear in Islington. The linked-to map shows it ending in Clerkenwell. A river cannot merely 'end', so perhaps a paragraph on what becomes of it? I'd guess either it enters the sewer system, goes underground until it empties in to the Thames, or else is entirely sucked up for drinking water? Grunners ( talk) 22:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
References
Thanks to GrubbingEngineer for the recent edits. I was wondering: I think the recreated Islington bit (St Pauls Rd to Canonbury Rd, very nice) may be called New River Walk. Is it worth including this if it is verifiable? (If there is a sign I could walk there at lunchtime and take a photo!) I worry that it is a bit de minima and also that it risks causing confusion with the New River Path of which it is only a tiny part. I am not about to start fisticuffs over this but I did wonder what others think? Best wishes to all, DBaK ( talk) 09:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)