Wikipedia:Peer review/Copenhagen Fire of 1728/archive1

Copenhagen Fire of 1728

I have put an effort into referencing this article properly lately, but I could use some advice on how to improve it from here. Does any of the sections need expanding more than the others? Is the prose good enough? I will appreciate your comments. Hemmingsen 16:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• To me the article looks quite good. I noticed a few minor issues with punctuation, but overall I didn't see any significant problems. My one suggestion would be to have a color-coded map of the city showing the chronological progress of the fire at specific points in time. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The color-coded map is a great idea. It really would make it easier to keep track of everything, and while I am unsure how to actually make it, I am sure it will be worth the effort. I'll try and see if I can do something about the punctuation as well. Thanks. Hemmingsen 19:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

An attempt at a color-coded map showing the progress now added to the article. Hemmingsen 16:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That looks good to me, thanks. The area of bright yellow is a little difficult to locate at first but it can be found by clicking on the image. It works for me. — RJH (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• The claim that "with exception of the Great Fire of London it was the largest yet to affect a European city" leaves me a bit uneasy. How did this compare with the destruction of the 20th century (e.g., the Bombing of Dresden in World War II), or to the chronic urban fires of Constantinople during the 17th & 18th centuries? I'm not looking to start a dispute over the title of "worst fire to affect a European city", & my quesiton may even be irrelevant, but I sense this is a topic that needs coverage in Wikipedia -- or at least some kind of qualification. (But more to the point, I was unable to tell from the material in the 2 articles which was worse: Copenhagen in 1728 or Dresden in 1945.) -- llywrch 21:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not compare with the bombing of Dresden at all. What I meant to say was that in 1728, Copenhagen was the largest. I have tried to clarify this, but with regard to Constantinople, I am a bit less certain. I will try and research this and give a longer answer later. Thanks. Hemmingsen 05:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your question was quite relevant, and I have removed the claim from the article and learnt a lesson about not trusting everything I read :-) . It seems that the Great Fire of Rome (ca. 4,000 buildings destroyed), the Fire of Moscow (1547) (ca. 25,000 buildings destroyed) and the Istanbul fire of 1715 (ca. 15,000 buildings destroyed) all were worse than Copenhagen in 1728 (ca. 1,600 buildings destroyed), so my "until 1728"-argument is no good. Thanks again. Hemmingsen 15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad your profitted from my comment (although my primary concern -- an objective way to evaluate how a fire in one city is better/worse than another -- probably is irrelevant to a review of your article). However, looking at the article again, I notice that you quote your sources in full in every footnote. For example, the work in note 3 is repeated in full in note 5. And while I admit that Wikipedia is not paper, seeing these sources repeated word for word at each reference annoys & mars an otherwise excellent article that is worthy of being a FA. If this is dictated by the Manual of Style, then varying from this odd dictate by offering an abbreviated citation (e.g., note 5 should read "Lauring, Byen brænder, pp. 10, 15, 30") ought not to keep it from becoming a FA -- & the Manual of Style should be revised. (And even though the guidelines of the Modern Language Association frowns on it, I feel use of Latin tags like ibid. or op. cit. are better than repeating word-for-word each citation of the same book. And I apologize for adding this tangential rant to the review of your article.) -- llywrch 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I have removed some of this redundant data, and I do admit that it's an improvement. No apology necessary. Hemmingsen 17:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)