Talk:Gravesend, Kent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Kent WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the county of Kent in South East England. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.) |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of high-importance for Kent-related articles. | ||
|
Article Grading: WikiProject Kent tasks:
|
|||
What constituency is this in - seems to be missing? Justinc 00:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Its in the Gravesham constituency. --LiamE 10:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The Romans did not call their road Watling Street - the name came later Peter Shearan 13:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Seems a touch pedantic to me. If you are going to go down that road (pardon the pun) the Romans didn't call London London or Kent Kent. Oh and Watling Street went well past London. It was "thier" road in that they built it even if they used a different name. --LiamE 01:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dartford peer review
The Dartford article has recently had an overhaul, and as follow-up has been nominated for peer review. Since editors to this article are likely to know something about Dartford as well, any edits you can make to the Dartford article or comments on the the peer review itself would be very useful. Thanks in advance! Jdcooper 23:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Errors in sections 1.4 and 1.5
The "Pocahontas" section on this page is good in spirit, but sloppy in specifics. See the Pocahontas main entry for better facts. This spills into the earlier section on "St. George's church". Here are some of the problem points.
- Many American Indians visited Europe and England before Pocahontas. The Spaniards had been colonizing America for more than a century by then. Squanto was kidnapped and taken to England by George Weymouth in 1605.
- John Smith was not captured by a "raiding party" that "descended on the hapless settlers". Pocahontas was not present when he was captured. She did not save him from death by "tomahawk". Close, though. He was captured; she apparently saved him from death by stone club, at a ceremony held in the Powhatan capitol of Weromocomoco.
- "...his daughter was falsely informed that Smith had died": "his" is a dangling reference intended for chief Powhatan. Don't worry about that too much, because this false information had been given out in 1609. Pocahontas was captured in 1613.
- The idea that the shock of meeting John Smith broke her heart, leading to her death, is quite romantic. It is as unsupported as the more common explanations that she died of smallpox, plague, or tuberculosis. She sickened, she died; the people in the room with her didn't understand it any better than that. John Rolfe did record her last words though: "All must die. 'Tis enough that the child liveth."
- She died in Gravesend, after she was taken off the ship.
I think that, since this article is about Gravesend, there should probably be more detail about exactly what she did in Gravesend. For instance, she spoke her last words there. She was by then Lady Rebecca Rolfe. Her funeral took place on March 21, 1616 in the parish of Saint George's, Gravesend. Her husband's name was misrecorded in the register. She was buried in the chancel, but the church burned down in 1727, and was rebuilt in 1731. When that happened, as I understand it, the bones of all those buried under the old floor were gathered together, and reburied together in the churchyard. Which bones belong to Pocahontas? No-one knows. An attempt was made some time ago to identify which skull was hers; it failed. There is, however, a handsome statue of her in the churchyard cemetery, unveiled in 1958 by the governor of Virginia.
St. George's church: This also affects the section on "St. George's church". The problem isn't that the parish records were lost in the fire, I'm not sure that they were. The problem is that the old church was lost in the fire. The parish records read, "1616 March 21, Rebecca Wrolfe, Wyffe of Thos. Wrolfe Gent. a Virginia lady borne; was buried in ye chancell. Entered by Rev. Nicholas Frankwell". She is no longer buried where those records indicate, however. Due to the fire and the subsequent rebuilding, all the bones under the old church were removed to a common grave in the churchyard. So we do know where she is buried, we just don't know which bones are hers.
-
- I'd like to applaud LaimE's corrections above. After having read the Gravesend article I went to the Discussion page here intending to correct the statement that Pocahontas was "the first Native American to visit England, and Europe" etc....LiamE is absolutely correct, there were others before her. Chief Manteo and Wancese from North Carolina (of the "Lost Colony" fame) also preceded her I believe, to say nothing of those from Spanish explorations....The article should be changed to "one of the earliest to visit England" or some such...Engr105th 03:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Well thanks for the credit, but in truth my contibution was "Be bold" to the previous unsigned entry. --LiamE 08:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] A rewrite of this article ...
... is definitely called for! It does not follow the recommended WikiPedia layout here for writing about settlements. OK there is a good deal about the history of the place, but precious little else. The geography of the town is needed; and there is little about the Gravesend of 2008 - how does it operate (economy, education); what are its features - eg the large Sikh population, and its new Gurdwara, gets no mention at all! The final section "Other notes of interest" are just a hotchpotch of facts, often still historical. And there are far too many citations needed for "facts": I have lived here for over twenty years and the statement about the Romany connection has never been "very well known" as far as I am aware; in any case where is this site mentioned? Even a seemingly innocuous statement such as "all evidence" of the West Street station having "disappeared" isn't entirely correct, since a skeleton remains of the platform awning!
I shall begin on a rewrite, following the recommended layout. Peter Shearan (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- rewrite now completed as far as I can at the moment:
- Airfield I have removed all mention of the airfield, and created (using largely the original text from here) a specific article on it. It then fits in with other such articles, and is in any case little to do with the Gravesend of today.
- Non-Gravesend places I have cut out mentions of other places - there was stuff about Higham and Northfleet, which belongs with their own articles We just have to be sure that what is included is simply Gravesend, and not Gravesham.
- Railways The station/Gravesend West Line, which have their own articles, has been reduced.
- Windmill Hill has its own article - compare with the entry here, which is virtually the same; except that conservation areas are mentioned in the article, not here.
- Pocahontas, again has its own article. section considerably reduced, but there may well be a better and more concise way of saying it here; I removed the statue to the Landmarks paragraph.
- Sport I KNOW there is more sport to be added, but I am not a sportsman by any means.
- Gravesend and the Thames section might be rewritten; its a bit too much history, not enough today. Tugs operate from here. Town Pier is a landmark
It's up to others now! Peter Shearan (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Good work. Shame there has been so little feedback.ClemRutter (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
