Talk:Great Stink

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Great Stink article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 60 days

Great Stink is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2015.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 12, 2015	Featured article candidate	Promoted
February 27, 2015	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Featured article

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

River Thames (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames articles

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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.

Ecology Low‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Science Policy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy 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.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Isha Bassi (27 March 2018). "24 Weird AF Wikipedia Pages That'll Make You Say, "Wait, This Actually Exists?!"". Retrieved 27 March 2018.

Grammar improvement

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"solutions for the problem" should be "solutions to the problem". Page isn't editable at present. 2A00:23C5:FE18:2701:F0F8:DB57:B640:F8BC (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi IP, both are correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Embanking up Future Problems?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In "February 1864 Bazalgetsectionsn building three embankments along the shores of the Thames". ..."He ran the sewers along the banks of the Thames, building up walls on the foreshore, running the sewer pipes inside and infilling around them.[75] The works claimed over 52 acres (21 ha) of land from the Thames".

So, all well and good - or is it? For what is not mentioned is that - by narrowing and confining the Thames - the river is now far more at risk of flooding. Given this, is it possible to mention something about the risk of flooding caused by the 'improvements' to The Embarkment/s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.163 (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

No. Or not here, at least. Maybe on the page for the Embankment. - SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Down/upriver

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"discharged their sewage half a mile (800 m) downstream from their reservoir: the sewage was being carried upstream into the reservoir on the incoming tide" should read instead "downriver" and "upriver". The sewage could be carried upstream but upriver by the incoming tidal stream. 217.41.2.97 (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Amendments made. Paul W (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ageing

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

SlyGuyFox, can you please stop edit warring and discuss your changes please. As a start, I will point out again that “ageing” is the correct spelling in British English (the variant in which this article is written). - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic