Wikipedia:Featured article review/Great Fire of London/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Joelr31 22:17, 11 November 2008 [1].

Great Fire of London[edit]

User:Bunchofgrapes, User:David Underdown, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fire Service, Wikipedia:WikiProject London, User:Bishonen, Wikipedia:WikiProject England notified.

I believe this article no longer meets WP:FACR 1c and 2c. Many sections and subsections such as Tuesday and Wednesday in the Development of the fire section lack many citations. The Aftermath section has several non-referenced paragraphs. Thoughts and opinions please. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as of this revision the sections noted as being of particular concern have footnotes (nos 32, 43, 44 and 53) which note that all material in these secitons is from the single source indicated, unless there's another footnote. Other than vandalism, the content of this article has been very stable across the period I've been watching it, which must be 18 months or more. I don't have access to the sources indicated, but if someone did it would be a relatively straightforward job to maybe give a slightly more specific page range for each paragraph. David Underdown (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close - The rationale suggests the nominator hasn't read the FAC or the article in any detail as both explain how the citations work. Slavishly adding {{cite}} at the end of every sentence isn't the mark of our best work. Yomanganitalk 10:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close per Yomangani. Giano (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no infobox. Anyway, Bloodworth was right: a woman could have pissed it out, if only one with a prodigiously large bladder had been located in time. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per David Underdown and Yomangani. Moreover, this is not in any way a new discovery, see WP:Featured article candidates/Great Fire of London/archive1. There were actually opposes based on not seeing the note that says everything not specifically sourced comes from Pepys' diary, or on the mistaken idea that this is somehow improper and the article must be cluttered with hundreds of citation footnotes that all look exactly the same. They were correctly dismissed at the time, and they should be dismissed now. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This is on its way to being closed unless the nominator can provide additional concerns. Joelito (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed Alright I failed to check the original FA nomination. Due to my terrible oversight this is now closed. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. --Kuzwa (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Great_Fire_of_London/archive1&oldid=251210287"