Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Great Fire of London/archive2

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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 6:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [1].

Great Fire of London

[edit]
Notified: Nikkimaria, Buidhe (talk page discussion); Bishonen (FA nominator); Outriggr, Tony1, Kirill Lokshin (involved in bringing it to FA status in 2006); Kuzwa (nominator for 2008 FAR); Dilidor, Howard352, Pontificalibus (substantial recent edits); London, Disaster management (WikiProjects), 2020-09-25, 2021-11-29

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks consistent citations, neglects recently published research, and is relying too heavily on primary sources. I had first raised these issues about 14 months ago, and some changes were made by Nikkimaria; however, the majority of the problems remain, and go beyond what I had initially looked at, as was pointed out today in more detail by Buidhe on the article talk page. Renerpho (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a quick skim, I see lots of uncited paragraphs. These will need to be sourced before this article can retain its FA status. Z1720 (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, there actually are not - the article just uses a more unusual citation style. See for example FN45. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct Nikki: I did not notice that the unusual citation style for some paragraphs, including the "Tuesday" section. This citation style makes it difficult for the reader to know where the information is cited from, as the reader will have to know to check the footnotes for the explanatory note, and will have to find the footnote that has the explanatory note. (For example, in aftermath the explanatory fn is fn 65, the second footnote of the first paragraph, while in Tuesday it is after the first sentence.) Also, the range of page numbers is large, and it might be beneficial to give specific page numbers for information. Would this citation style still be acceptable in FAC? I do not recommend this style myself. Z1720 (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also wouldn't recommend it, but I'm not sure I would go so far as to forbid it. The ranges are not IMO unreasonably huge, and if necessary the footnote could be repeated to improve findability. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We also don't know if new text has crept in since the note was added.
  • The section "Monday" is based on Tinniswood, 58–74, unless otherwise indicated.
Would be lovely if someone got their hands on Tinniswood and just added the page nos. I don't know which version of the book to suggest, since the citation mentions publisher= Jonathan Cape, but amazon.com has two different versions with publisher= Riverhead Books, and we don't have an ISBN. They both now seem to be Penguin Books ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC I looked at the creep problem last year and it seemed to have limited drift, but I can have another look. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that the first FAR (2008) and the FA nomination (2006) both discussed the question of the "unusual citation style", and came to the conclusion that using the footnotes as they are now was better than to "clutter" the article with citations (compare Hans Adler's comment here, and Piotrus's vote and the discussion below it here). I do get the argument, but maybe it is good to reassess this -- just to be sure that, 15 years on, our ideas about how an FA should look (with regard to the style and "density" of citations) haven't significantly changed. I am of the opinion that a citation style that confuses the reader, and even experienced editors, and makes it difficult to locate information in the cited sources, can't be the preferred option, no matter if Wikipedia technically allows it. Renerpho (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment since I was summoned. The article is clearly undercited - there are paragraphs or parts of that are clearly missing citations at the end. I also see that some footnotes are not citations but notes. This article has therefore serious referencing problems and is not even at the GA level in that regard. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Renerpho

  • @Nikkimaria: I see you are working on the citations - thanks a lot! I changed some of the en-dashes, for consistency. I'll look at how well these citations work later. I just noticed one minor problem that should be easy to address: Some references, like "Hanson, 326–33", shorten the page range (326–333 is implied); some, like "Hanson (2001), 326–333", don't, and/or give the year of publication. This is not done consistently. Renerpho (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Year of publication is (or should be) given for Hanson because there are multiple works by that author in the References list; this disambiguation is not needed for the other authors. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've fixed one half of the issue. The question of the page number format remains. The difference between FN4 and FN67 is the most obvious, but there are others. Renerpho (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All Hanson citations now refer to the 2001 book. Why is the 2002 book included in the references? The list of references says that this is A "substantially different" version of Hanson's The Dreadful Judgement (front matter). - What does that mean, and why is it good/bad/useful/interesting? Renerpho (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's useful if both are cited, because it lets the reader know that they are different editions of the same work. If it's not cited it shouldn't be included, but how did you determine that the refs lacking disambiguation were to the 2001 and not the 2002? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: There was just one instance where no year was given. I got my hands on Hanson's 2002 book. The easiest way to see that it's not the cited work is that it only has 294 pages (322 including front matter etc), so a reference to page 326 makes no sense. I don't have the 2001 book, but FN4 and FN67 are obviously the same citation, for very similar facts, just with different citation format. That is what I found problematic. I have no objections against keeping (Hanson, 2002), but we should better explain what it is for. Regarding the "substantially different" part: The 2002 book says that this book in a substantially different form under the title The Dreadful Judgement was first published in the United Kingdom in 2001 by Doubleday, a division of Transworld Publishers (page iv). The words "front matter" in the reference were unclear to me until I realised that they indicated that this was a quote from the front matter of the 2002 book. Until then, I wondered why a difference about the front matter should be substantial, and why that's noteworthy; or why one would only publish the front matter of the 2001 book (okay, maybe I'd have to be stupid to think that, but the reference just isn't clear). -- There is one more problem: Because I don't have the 2001 book, I can not verify that any of the Hanson citations actually are what they claim to be, and I have serious doubts that they are. The only first edition of that book that I could find, Doubleday, ISBN 9780385601344, has 320 pages, which makes a reference to pages 326-333 hard to understand. The Wikipedia article gives no detail regarding which edition it talks about, so good luck searching. Renerpho (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC) EDIT: I suppose it talks about the paperback version, Doubleday, ISBN 9780385603270, 378 pages, but I can't be sure. Renerpho (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the 2002 work is not cited, I've removed it from References. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Now the inconsistent citation format is the only problem remaining. Renerpho (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The citation format issue has been resolved. Renerpho (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am relaying the reply of User:Bishonen (the FA nominator), who said they won't join the discussion, but that This new source, which was mentioned on talk, sounds like a must if the article is to remain featured. Renerpho (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article relies very heavily on Tinniswood's book for the timeline. Often it is the only source for entire sections, which can't be a good thing. The book was quite recent when the majority of this article was written in 2004-2006. We should check if anything published since 2003 disagrees with Tinniswood's account, and say so. Where necessary, (parts of) the timeline have to be rewritten from more up-to-date sources. Renerpho (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that we rely so heavily on Tinniswood also raises the question of whether any parts of the article contain material that (accidentally) infringes on copyright. This should be checked as well, just in case. The FA nomination doesn't mention copyright, so I don't know if the question was ever raised (and answered) before. Renerpho (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does cite [2] in one (fairly inconsequential) instance, but makes no use of the rest of that source. Renerpho (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This study from 2020 presents new insights into how the rebuilding was financed (a much more expensive matter than previously thought). Renerpho (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe gives these sources on the article talk page, to be incorporated into the article:[3][4][5] Renerpho (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All quotes from and details involving Samuel Pepys come from his diary entry for the day referred to."
  • "All quotes from and details involving John Evelyn come from his diary."
  • And do we trust those people to tell the truth, or claim that we are capable of interpreting their diaries? I would much rather read the learned opinion of a historian about Pepys' accounts than the interpretation of whoever Wikipedia editor(s) put them into the article. Does any of the secondary sources give those quotes as relevant for the history of the Great Fire? If so, I suggest to cite those (alongside the diary, if deemed appropriate). Renerpho (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly relevant sources include [6][7][8]. Quite a lot seems to be published about this, so it shouldn't be hard to find sources. It may be hard to decide which ones to use... Renerpho (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my copy of the book, the quote "People do all the world over cry out of the simplicity [the stupidity] of my Lord Mayor in general; and more particularly in this business of the fire, laying it all upon him." from Pepys' diary has a comma where the article gives a semicolon, and an instance of different spelling. I am not sure this is significant at all (and even if it is, if it should be changed), but elsewhere the article clarifies when spelling is modernized for clarity, so I thought I'd raise it, just in case. Renerpho (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC) I am striking this point, upon further thought. The article does explain that "all web versions of the diaries are based on public domain 19th century editions and unfortunately contain many errors, as the shorthand in which Pepys' diaries were originally written was not accurately transcribed until the pioneering work of Latham and Matthews." The question whether spelling is modernized consistently in the article remains, but that's not a pressing issue at the moment. Renerpho (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the footnotes 80-91, which link to various websites:

  • Hinds, Allen B, ed. (1935): This links here. I have tried to find something related to the sentence it is supposed to verify ("it reduced the risk of French ships crossing the Channel and the North Sea being taken or sunk by the English fleet") on that page, but I was not successful. Maybe I am blind, or it's just not there. If the page range is reduced from the unnecessarily large "80-97" to the exact page where this appears, that should solve the problem. Or do we actually need the entire 18 pages to verify a half sentence? Renerpho (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Another monument marks the spot where the fire stopped: the Golden Boy of Pye Corner in Smithfield" is currently cited from here. This is an image of the Golden Boy of Pye Corner monument, but if I am not mistaken, nothing on that page says what the monument is marking, or that this is where the fire stopped. The article for the Golden Boy of Pye Corner seems to have citation problems of its own, with a citation needed tag, and no source for the question at hand (linking to the same web page as its only source, and missing a source for the inscription itself). Renerpho (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what does it mean to mark the spot "where the fire stopped"? Is it the last place that was burning? Because the fire stopped everywhere once it was out, right? Renerpho (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the sentence "Historians disagree as to whether the fire played a part in preventing subsequent major outbreaks": Right now the article follows with The Museum of London website claims that there was a connection, while historian Roy Porter points out that the fire left the slum suburbs untouched. Looking at the museum website (the linked archived version from 2006), I find this: "The Great Fire of 1666 could not be responsible since it was almost totally confined to the City, and even there, the parishes most affected by plague (to the north and east) were untouched by the fire." That does not sound like a claim that there was a connection. Renerpho (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should we really call channel4.com the "Museum of London website"? Channel4 is quoting the museum's director here, but that's a different thing, isn't it? Renerpho (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor issue: The full transcript of the interview with the museum director does not touch the question at hand, so here Channel4 must be quoting one of the other unnamed "experts at the museum". I can't find out which one. Renerpho (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has been resolved. Renerpho (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am checking all instances where the article gives dates for particular events. So far I have noticed:

Assuming that we keep the current citation style (which I do NOT recommend), the following sections need additional citations. The better option would be to completely overhaul the references, to address the issues raised above. In that case the points below remain valid, in that these sections need new references, but so would the entire rest of the article:

  • In the Sunday section, parts of the 2nd and 3rd paragraph are not referenced. Some of the other paragraphs have statements that may or may not need citations, but since the only references given are complete chapters of books, this would have to be checked by someone who has access to those books (which I do not; many of the references given in the article are impossible to verify for me). Note that there is no The section "Sunday" is based on... reference, unlike for the other days. Why is that? Renerpho (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the parts you are referring to here are from Pepys' diary, which is covered by FN20. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am beginning to hate this article. Renerpho (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC
    The section suffers from the same problem that affects large parts of the article, by referring to a hard to interpret primary source. It doesn't merely quote Pepys; that would be acceptable. It treats the content of his diary as factual information, where it is merely an eye witness report. An example: Things like Charles' brother James, Duke of York, offered the use of the Royal Life Guards to help fight the fire need a proper source, or be changed to Pepys claims that Charles' brother James, Duke of York, offered the use of the Royal Life Guards to help fight the fire. If any of the secondary sources (Tinnisworth? Porter? Hanson? anyone?) come to the conclusion that his diary as a whole can be treated as neutral and reliable, or if there is another reliable source for the information, then that can be cited. Until then, anything Pepys writes should be treated with the appropriate care, as it may be driven by a hidden political agenda. Renerpho (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary sources (including both Tinniswood and Hanson) use them extensively as sources for historical information. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting at A special Fire Court was set up..., two paragraphs of the Aftermath section don't have a single reference. Where is this stuff coming from? Renerpho (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a section reference for Aftermath, so presumably that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The section "Aftermath" is based on Reddaway, 27 ff. and Tinniswood, 213–37, unless otherwise indicated - Which is it, Reddaway, or Tinniswood? Which of the 25+ pages? Which editions (the books listed are hard to identify, as no ISBN are given)? With that kind of vagueness, we may just add a single citation to the first sentence of the article, saying This article is based on the books listed at the end, unless otherwise indicated. Renerpho (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Since you have been editing the Tinniswood citations, I suppose you have identified the relevant edition. Can you add the necessary details to the article (ISBN etc)? Renerpho (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As the correct edition of Tinniswood can be found onthe Internet Archive, I've added the link. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue raised by SandyGeorgia, We also don't know if new text has crept in since the note was added, remains. The problem is that the current citation style makes the article very rigid, and makes it very difficult to edit it without breaking its integrity. Any user who may want to add something would have to be warned with flashing red letters that they have to make clear which parts come from the "old" reference (and possibly copy/paste that reference to the sections that aren't supposed to be affected), and which ones come from the "new" one. Someone will have to check whether the current article text (every sentence of it) is supported by the existing references. (Where I have access to the sources, I'll be happy to help with that where I can.) Renerpho (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dicklyon has raised the question on the talk page why "City" is capitalized in the article. The question was discussed in December 2006, but the discussion was abandoned with an explanation that seems unsatisfactory. I know that the "City of London" is a thing, but is it really what the article is talking about (i.e. "the City proper"), or is that something else again? And why is "City wall" capped? Isn't this just a "city wall"? Renerpho (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue was resolved on the article talk page. Renerpho (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Renerpho (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Looking at the latest revision, I see you removed my recently added url after "Popish Plot and the exclusion crisis later in his reign". I think this should stand, because I am citing the 2006 version of that work here, not the most recent 2020 version to which the DOI and title refers (which may or may not work as a source, but why assume that it does?). Also, the 2020 version of this isn't freely available, while the 2006 version is. I don't know if there's a policy for this, but I usually prefer sources that are accessible. Renerpho (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want a more recent source, the 2017 version works, too. Renerpho (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hold FAR – I'm not sure if I'm up to the task, to be honest. But I'd prefer if the discussion was kept open at least for a short while (another week or so?). Some work is being done (Nikkimaria has added inline citations, for example), and while many of the issues remain unaddressed, I'm not sure where this is going yet.
I second SandyGeorgia's question: Does anyone have access to the Jacob Field book, or some of the other sources needed? Also, is there anyone besides Nikkimaria who is willing to work on this article? Because this is getting too big for the two of us (well, for me at least). Right now, I even struggle to summarize what has to be done, let alone actually do it. Renerpho (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested it and am waiting for it to arrive. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful; then I'm on board for any assistance I might offer in retaining this star. Let me know if there any tasks I can tackle, Nikkimaria. Renerpho, I suggest moving the bulk of work to the article talk page, using some organized sections, and using this page only for updates on progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I'll return from vacation on Monday, I'll get to it at that point. Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Renerpho I set up the section for you on talk to make the move easier. If you move anything resolved to talk, we can more easily see what work remains. Happy New Year and safe travels home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Renerpho? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Renerpho hasn't edited since 2 Jan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Renerpho has still not edited since 2 January. There is a wall of text above, too hard to sort out what is addressed to satisfy Renerpho’s concerns, while Nikkimaria has gotten hold of the new book, and (as far as we know) worked through all of the issues. How can we get fresh eyes on the new product? Perhaps moving it to FARC will trigger others to look in and list any remaining concerns so this FA can be saved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber and DrKay: Renerpho has still not edited since 2 January. They left extremely long commentary on this page which is now difficult to sort through. Nikkimaria has incorporated the new book, and extensively reworked the article. Absent further feedback from the nominator, do we close without FARC, or move to FARC for !voting, or hope someone else will weigh in? @Buidhe, Extraordinary Writ, Hog Farm, and Z1720: for more feedback. I'd !vote to close it; if/when Renerpho returns to editing, they can reopen (after about a six-month wait) if they still find issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like most of the issues that were originally brought up have been addressed, such as lack of inline citations and non-incorporation of recent sources. Not sure if it would pass FAC today but I'm not opposed to closing at this point. (t · c) buidhe 22:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually haven't read this article directly, but I can give it a quick skim over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 22:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HF! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you all can opine then I can keep coordinator hat on and do the administrative tasks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cas! Waiting on Hog Farm now; unless he finds something onerous, I'll be at close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HF
  • "By the 1660s, London was by far the largest city in Britain, estimated at 400,000 inhabitants" but also "By the late 17th century, the City proper—the area bounded by the city wall and the River Thames—was only a part of London, covering some 700 acres (2.8 km2; 1.1 sq mi),[10] and home to about 80,000 people, or one quarter of London's inhabitants" which suggests 320,000. These are clearly estimates, but is there a way to work this together better to indicate a range?
  • Would it be feasible to link to List of Christopher Wren churches in London instead of the category in "and its smaller cousins, Christopher Wren's 51 new churches"

I'm at a keep here, as there doesn't seem to be major issues remaining. Hog Farm Talk 15:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a population range and changed the link. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2022 (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/archive2&oldid=1068724927"