Talk:Great New York City Fire of 1845

Inflation

This is a group project that will be expanded and refined in coming weeks. This was a requested article listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences/History#Historic_events --Brodmont (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone find out how much money the damage would be in today's currency? Might be good to add.--Jeflicki (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The reference I saw most recently said $10 million damage, but didn't we also see one that said $6 million? Might be good to mention the disparate figures -- and put it into today's dollars also, as you suggest.--Brodmont (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Found two websites with inflation calculators: http://www.davemanuel.com/inflation-calculator.php and http://www.westegg.com/inflation/. Looks like the damages would be around 242 to 303 million dollars today.--Jeflicki (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem with using an external inflator is, it gives a static figure which will be invalid tomorrow. Better to use the internal Template:Inflation. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, good -- thanks for pointing us to that! --Brodmont (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Links

The three major sections probably don't have enough proportional converage. Need more in the Fire section and code and practices section.--Jeflicki (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this article could use more links within it to things that some people may not understand. Some clarification on some things might also be good if there is nothing to link to. Engine Co. 22 is an example of something I think should be elaborated on more.--SJRick (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely more links needed. The sections such as Fire, and Warehouse explosion could be elaborated on further with a few connecting links. --Thepresidenthal (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested in knowing specifically how the people died. Did they die from smoke inhalation? Did they die from being struck by flying bricks? I think it might be a good idea to mention how they died, if the information is available. Also, I agree with SJRick and Thepresidenthal, more links are definitely needed. Perhaps links to "whale oil" and "saltpeter". One more thing, is there not a more accurate estimation than 5 to 10 million? That's a pretty big gap. Rebaduck (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I would advise having a more thorough discussion of why the fire spread so much (besides the explosion, of course). Perhaps mention somewhere the available technologies of firefighting at the time (or at least link it). Another side element that would probably make the article really interesting is a map showing which area of New York was affected. I'm not sure you could find one, but it probably wouldn't be too hard to make one! --Eems.p (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I also feel that the Fire section needs expansion. If more sources can be found and linked, I'm sure more information will be readily available to be added. I also think the Aftermath section could use some bolstering. There's no doubt the event happened happened, but a bit more data there would be nice. Again an opportunity to include more links. --Seannator (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great New York City Fire of 1845/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 05:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks quite solid and ripe for promotion. You've done an excellent job here, especially considering that this seems to be almost your first wiki article. It's well-written, provides sufficient detail without being overdetailed, and appears to cover the major aspects of its subject.

I've noted a few quibbles below that I'd like your thoughts on. I also did some minor copyediting, mostly for Manual of Style issues, as I went through the article; please take a look to make sure I didn't inadvertently introduce any errors, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Thanks again for your work on this!

• The lead should be expanded slightly per WP:LEAD; ideally, the lead should touch on each of the article's major sections (in this case, mentioning the warehouse explosion and long-term effects of the fire.)
• "Firemen battling the blaze " -- just wanted to make a quick check on the gender--are we confident all the firefighters involved were male? (In 1845, this seems extremely likely, but thought I'd doublecheck.)
• It's slightly confusing to transition from the blaze being under control at 1 PM to "The fire spread to destroy buildings " -- did this happen after 1 PM? Or before the fire was brought under control by firefighters? Either way a transitional phrase of some kind might add clarity here--"During the ten and a half hours that it burned, the fire had ..."
• " In today's currency" -- giving a specific year would be more helpful than saying "today's" per WP:REALTIME Never mind, I see this is the inflation template. Nice work.
• "As the fire spread, it reached" -- Another moment where the chronology gets confusing; you might immediately situate the reader by saying "In the first two hours of the fire's spread" or some such. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reviewing the article. These are great comments and right on the money. I'm working on this article with a small group of collaborators, and we'll make sure to implement these changes. We'll let you know as soon as that is done. --Brodmont (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

About the use of "firemen," yes, I wondered about that when writing that part. Nowadays I think we would use the gender-neutral term "firefighters." However, I'm certain there were no women in those engine companies at the time, and the term "fireman" was the one used at the time. That said, since we are writing today, I wonder whether it might be better to use the modern term. --Brodmont (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

That's up to you, then. "Firemen" might be a more accurate usage if that's what your sources use. But it won't be an issue for GA status one way or the other. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

We've expanded the lead section as you requested. Please let us know whether this looks right. Thanks very much for your attention to this article. --Brodmont (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See above for minor clarity suggestions. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I'd suggest expanding the lead by 2-3 sentences to summarize all the article's sections.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	A brief article, but comparison to sources suggest main aspects are covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Thanks in particular for creating the map.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA.

Opening Paragraph

Hi. I just read this article and found the second sentence was edited on 26 September, 2017 from: "The fire started in a whale-oil and candle manufacturing establishment and quickly spread to other wooden structures in the neighborhood." to: "The fire started in a whale oil and candle manufacturing establishment and quickly spread to other wooden structures in New York City the neighborhood." The New York City link reads "in New York City the neighborhood." Could someone please fix it? I'm lucky I could figure out how to let you know about this, much less change it myself. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuzzyR (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done @BuzzyR: Good catch. Thanks. I went ahead and changed it to "Lower Manhattan" to be specific without repeating "New York City". You should try editing yourself sometime, though. Adding and removing a few words is pretty easy. Just click "edit" at the top of the page and it should load a text editor. Make the changes, click save/publish, and voila. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)