Talk:Devil's Pocket

Boundaries, sources and such
A small dispute on this article hinges on a problem with this article: We need more sources. An editor from the area disagrees with the boundaries and some other information given in the article. What was in the article (from the city) gives boundaries for the neighborhood but does not give a date. Some of those that are dated go back to the 17th century. As there are no "official" boundaries for neighborhoods in Philly, two things happen: There are varying definitions at any given time and the boundaries move over time. The city source is likely accurate, but incomplete (when are these boundaries from and who used them). The city source, IMO, should go back in, but with qualification of some kind. Other than that, we have the philly.com article which really doesn't help (suggesting that the name is no longer used). For more current usage and boundaries, we need more sources. Penn has/had a neighborhoods project, focused on demographics, that might be of help. South Philly Review had a series of articles a few years back focused on individual neighborhoods (though I don't know if they got that far north). I'll take a look when I have a chance. As always, anyone can edit this article at any time. That said, the city source is reliable (though likely dated) and should be restored. There is a good bit of unsourced material starting to creep in that will need to be sourced or removed. Whatever civic associations cover the area might give some info on their websites. - Sum mer PhD (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, a few sources to consider:
 * philly.com, but it's a restaurant article (limited reliability in this context)
 * Philly History Blog - Yes, it is a "blog". That said, it is city funded and we use it fairly widely (I've had it accepted for a handful of articles on various race riot articles I worked on).
 * philly.com news article - just a minor mention, but shows recent usage.
 * [Hidden City], a site I love, has a few articles. While I doubt anyone would call the articles themselves reliable, they often mention their sources (which might be).
 * A mixed bag of othersother mentionsthat might have a few lurking facts: . A few of these are reviews for the novel/film, but might include some lingering facts of use here.
 * Another note: We might want a disamb note for devil's pocketbook.