Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great Fire of London

[edit]

Selfnom. This article existed, but I have pretty much rewritten it from scratch (re-using the nice first sentence). That's not because it was so terrible or anything, but it was basically unsourced, as well as a bit fragmentary and uneven. Bunchofgrapes drew the fine maps. Bishonen | talk 06:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Support I must say that I eyed this many times on RC patrol and wondered why such a well written article remained in user space. Well written, well referenced, well illustrated. Looks fabulous -- Samir धर्म 06:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support excellent. Borisblue 07:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • "squalid suburban slums surrounding" Made me want to support instead. :D
    • Question: would it make more sense to use "the city" instead of "the City"?
    • Co-ordinated firefighting efforts were simultaneously getting underway... avoid forms of "to get".
    • In the event the medieval street plan was basically reconstructed, and still prevails today. Is there a missing comma after event? Also, should it be "after the fire" instead of "In the event"?
    • Lot's of long sentences that could be broken up. By the 1660s, London was by a huge margin the largest city in Britain, estimated at 300,000 inhabitants[5]—10% of the population of the entire country[6]—which made it the third largest metropolis of the Western world, surpassed only by Constantinople and Paris. This one is especially rambling: London, for seven centuries an old Roman settlement, had become progressively more overcrowded inside its defensive City wall, and had pushed outwards beyond it into squalid extramural slums and former manorial provinces such as Shoreditch, Holborn, and Southwark, and reached to physically incorporate the originally independent city of Westminster. Yikes! :) The City was then as now the commercial heart of the capital, the largest market and busiest port in the kingdom, dominated and politically controlled by the trading and manufacturing classes, including skilled craftsmen of all kinds as well as tradesmen and wealthy merchants.
    • The definition of "the City proper" could be moved up to where it appears earlier.
    • Put inline citations at the end of sentences.
    • A variety of unsourced statements. Some random examples: Pepys comments in his diary on how nobody was trying to put it out, but instead fleeing from it in fear, hurrying "to remove their goods, and leave all to the fire". Later, In the early evening, with his wife and some friends, Pepys went again on the river "and to the fire up and down, it still encreasing."
    • Consider putting the references into two columns.
    • Overall, very well-researched though! It's close to FA in my opinion, but not quite there.

Gzkn 08:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Unsourced statements: fixed. There was a "covering note" for Pepys, stating that "All quotes from and details involving Samuel Pepys come from his diary", which had gotten shunted too far down on the page in some structural shuffle. I've now moved it back up to the first use of a fact from Pepys' diary, where it belongs. IMO, such covering notes are a good way of keeping the number of footnotes down, especially in the case of a day-by-day description largely based on diaries (Pepys' and Evelyn's); the date itself, which is always apparent from my narrative, stands in for a page reference to the diary. The date not only saves a footnote, but is actually better than a page reference, since the date is the same in any edition the reader may be using, and also much easier to locate on a webpage.
The footnote numbers already are at the ends of sentences where possible; but where clarity requres is, they're in mid-sentence. It looks ugly and I've tried to avoid it, but clarity is king, and it's standard academic practice, too.
I'm afraid I don't agree with the stylistic suggestions, as long sentences don't in my opinion equal "rambling" —roundabout, directionless, wordy , digressive, disconnected—sentences. For my taste, the sentences you quote seem directionfull and connected. I believe chopping them up to would result in poorer flow, not better. But that's me, YMMV. I don't personally hold with any mecanical embargo on the word "get", either. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support I'll make the required edits to change it if there's consensus for what's mentioned above. SunStar Net 10:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An extremely impressive article. MLilburne 10:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: From the point of view of prose (tone, variation of sentence structure, variation of verbs, avoidance of serial to-be verbs, well-chosen adjectives, vivid description, structures that move the reader quickly toward points), this is one of the finest articles we've had on FAC. From the point of view of the subject matter, it is one of the most important events in London history, and yet it is covered fairly ("fully" would need a book). From the point of view of scholarship, the article employs up to date references, avoids the tired "it's all for the best" stories that riddle most accounts, takes account of the dispossessed and uncounted, and sets the central event in a local historical context. From the point of view of appearance on the page, it is illustrated well. Geogre 12:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Just excellent. However, a few things need fixing. The date format in the first caption is different from that in the first para. The second para is crying out for one or two references. Compared with, not to, for contrasts. "i. e." needs to be "i.e.,". A pity not to get someone who's unfamiliar with the text to run through it. Then it could be used as a model WP article. Tony 12:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping sombody would fix the mysteries of WP dating, yes. But I believe that crying sound you hear from the lead section is rather because any footnotes have been forced on it, considering that it summarizes stuff which is properly sourced below. The reason I put in any notes at all in the lead was that I thought some of the relevant notes below were awfully far away, mainly those in the "Deaths and destruction" section at the end. The question whether or not to have notes in the lead section is a vexed one, without consensus AFAIK. I believe, for instance, that Raul654 is on record recently stating that he thinks inlines are unnecessary in the lead. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I guess the crux of the matter is whether the information is referenced further down. If so, not a problem. (I wasn't on the look-out when I read through the article, I must admit, and I was guided to make that comment because other paragraphs in the lead are referenced.) PS As usual, I didn't check who nominated the article when I made the comment: it comes up to your usual extremely high standards, and despite my quibbles, is a pleasure to read. Tony 14:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object; excellent article in almost every respect, but the date formatting really must be fixed. The first sentence, in particular, has such an absurdly convoluted form ("Sunday 2 to Wednesday 5 September 1666") that it's difficult to understand what it actually means on first reading it. Kirill Lokshin 13:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Krill, I actually don't mind it—this is a common British/Australian format for dates. Perhaps just adding another "September" after "2" might satisfy your misgivings? Or change to the "nd", "th" method, although I prefer the numeral alone. Tony 14:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, another "September" would be an improvement (although, if we're going to do that, we may as well add the needed links for date preferences to work); should it have some commas in there, though (i.e. "Sunday, 2 September to Wednesday, 5 September 1666")? Kirill Lokshin 14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems to have been fixed, so support from me. Kirill Lokshin 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There was a "covering note" for Pepys, stating that "All quotes from and details involving Samuel Pepys come from his diary", which had gotten shunted too far down on the page in some structural shuffle. I've now moved it back up to the first use of a fact from Pepys' diary, where it belongs. IMO, such covering notes are a good way of keeping the number of footnotes down, That logic works fine for a static article, but not for a dynamic encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You could be hit by the proverbial truck tomorrow, and years from now, all editors currently involved in the article could be gone from Wiki, leaving new editors to try to determine which statements are covered by that sentence and what was added in the interim. Citations should reflect the dynamic nature of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Sandy (Talk) 14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Begging your pardon, but that's just silly. Samuel Pepys is singular. There is only one work by him, and there is universal agreement on the text. I don't even think one needs to cite the diary at all, because anything attributed to Pepys is from the diary. There simply is nothing else, has been nothing else, and, if there ever is something else, it will be that which will require citation. Any scholarly book you read will simply refer to facts taken from Pepys, much as one would from Anthony Wood. The covering note is a belt with suspenders, and you are suggesting that it's just too insecure? Honestly, there is just one Pepys. Geogre 15:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm usually a completist when it comes to citations, but when it comes to Pepys' diary, citing a day is more than enough even for me. MLilburne 19:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are missing it, but we do have Category:Christopher Wren London churches Giano 20:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Normally, I would ask that images be reduced in size and have a standardized size throughout, but something about this article demands a larger image in the lead and a mixture of others elsewhere. Superb.--MONGO 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article undoubtably meets the criteria. With more text than most it is very well written. It is well illustrated using free images (I'd like to see the pano image with a live link to the original or the image displayed on the image page nm I didn't see it, maybe it should be at the Commons though). It is well referenced and from a variety of sources. It has an interesting topic and finite scope - with only a few days recieving most of the coverage it has enormous depth while suggesting more to be written. I wish the opposers had commented (or edited their concerns), as oppose is such a strong term for what seem like minor points of contention. DVD+ R/W 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An admirable discourse, as one Chief Secretary to the Admiralty used to say. Support. --Ghirla -трёп- 22:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Outstanding article. If being hypercritical, it ends a little suddenly and could do with a photo of The Monument. --Dweller 09:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-duper Support, this article was the original reason I first viewed Wikipedia. It wasn't all that stunning, at the time. Nice job improving it :D Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 10:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have done a light copyedit - not that it needed very much - and have left a few minor comments on the talk page, but this is superb. I understand that there is intended to be a separate "rebuilding of London" article, which explains why the last section is so short (and in any event, this article is about the fire, not what came next). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much better: Outrigger and Aloan seem to have picked up all of the ce needs I noticed. Were it not for recent firefighter deaths in the USA due to arson, I would thoroughly enjoy reading this superb article. I still can't support this citation style, though (example, "This subsection is based on Tinniswood, 1–11, unless otherwise indicated.") This method leaves the article open to problems down the road if the original authors and editors become uninvolved, and new editors make unsourced additions. Some may argue we can always chech history or revert should that happen, but FAR experience shows this is easier said than done when the original editors go missing. At least three things could help resolve my concerns: 1) add at minimum a cite to each paragraph (using named refs, that will not overburden the article), 2) cite any data, numbers or extraordinary claims (example, I noted that London as the third largest metropolis after Constantinople and Paris isn't cited), and 3) expand these footnotes to be more specific to the text they cover, in the event sections or text are moved in the future (example: The subsection London in the 1660s is based on Tinniswood, 1-11, unless otherwise indicated). Sandy (Talk) 15:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to be pedantic, but the featured article criteria seem to indicate you should judge based on the current state of an article, not based on fears about a hypothetical future state. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, not to be impolitic, but go ahead and object on your private criteria, if you choose, but they're not FA criteria. Your version of "copy editing" is demonstrably incorrect, and many of the changes you are applauding violate grammatical rules, stylistic best practice, and common sense. At least two of these should be defended. Geogre 13:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Drat, there goes the neighborhood: a perfectly fine candidacy turns argumentative. George, these copy editing "changes [I am] applauding" are curious, since I didn't specify any. When I came to discuss the ce issues I had seen in my partial read of a hardcopy the night before, they had already been addressed: please take up any other ce issues with Aloan and Outrigger. I have suggested some exceedingly trivial tweaks that will satisfy me that the current 1c requirement is met: it's hard to imagine why changing wording like "this section" to specifically say which section is problematic. Since the Hilary Putnam debacle, I try to avoid FACs which turn argumentative: it would have been a pleasure to support this article, I haven't lodged an Oppose, and the article is doing just fine without my support. Molehill --> mountain, not worth it. Best, and congratulations to Bishonen on a fine article, Sandy (Talk) 17:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amazing that I could think that someone who offers no actual issues to improve and yet states the need for "copy editing," when what is being advocated is not copy editing but stylistic alteration to suit a personal and idiosyncratic vision is simply trying to mark territory and might lack an appreciation for fine writing. I must have been imagining things. Being ignorant of scholarly practice is well and good. Being ignorant of it and insisting against it anyway is another. I loathe the smugness of "copy edit" needed, when the person saying so could as easily do some work, the amazingly delusional "copy edited" when what has happened is a wikilink inserted (to something quite important, like "plague" or "year"), so when these two tendencies meet, it's not surprising that I'm viscerally offended, but what is surprising is that, for a person avoiding contentious FAC's, you seem to do so much to create them by using tracer paper sheets and failing to do any editing or accepting that substantives require discussion on talk pages. However, feel free to vote to oppose on "ce" grounds (or XP grounds or NT grounds), or, if you believe that the author is to be congratulated and that it is undoubtedly fine prose, you could vote to support and demonstrate how truly above the fray you are and how much less immature about these things than I am. <shrug> My version was that your "ce" concerns were irrelevant to FAC standards. Geogre 19:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your assertion that the "copy edits" don't amount to much is (really) disingenuous. A number of editors have/had improved the style. I've certainly seen the edit summary "copy edit" used loosely, but it hasn't been used loosely with this article, and it seems the nominating group here is sufficiently territorial to get worked up about it (as did I, when I saw all the reversions). So, I guess you can keep your sentence forms like "Flight from London and settlement elsewhere were strongly encouraged by Charles II...", and "In the event, London was reconstructed...", and "...rumours arose of suspicious foreigners deliberately setting fires" (much scarier than the other rumours in which foreigners were accidentally setting fires). My opposition on this basis (and I never got far beyond the lead) would only be continuing my talk-page bad mood of the night before, so... good day. –Outriggr § 01:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And, if you confined yourself to removing passives, no one would have a word to say about it. However, is drought important? The "group" doing the nominating is one person. However, when people decide that, simply put, it cannot be passable if it has not been passed through their system (cf. how "the group" deals with others when they have objections; I'm right up above withholding support on stylistic grounds for an article slathered in Gibbonisms), then you might not be surprised to see some tight scrutiny in return. If you would actually go to oppose as opposed to merely not supporting on the basis of such trivialities, then I can at least be relieved of any charge of being the petty one. There are many nearly passing articles on FAC right now that can benefit from some significant linguistic surgery, but these get either no comment or the most bizarre of automatonic objections, while a masterful synthesis of a complex and often-told narrative in well written (brilliant) prose gets a flock of ducks pecking about (no point, but lots of hammering all the same), so that, too, would tend to increase rancor. Geogre 02:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • On your later points I agree. Perhaps you should just take the gathering "flock of ducks" as a compliment. I'll keep your comments in mind, and try to limit my future contributions—which likely will never be of the building-FACs-from-the-rubble variety—to stub-sorting and reverting vandalism. We can't have people pooling around quality stuff to make it even better. Sigh. –Outriggr § 03:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a fine piece of work and an excellent article. Greycap 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Seems I'm swimming against the tide here, but I'm concerned about the images: my screen is set to 1024 x 768 pixels and that first one takes up around half the screen when Firefox is maximized. Anything less and the page is really messed up. Consider using the thumbnail option and setting the image to 300 px or so. I'm personally a fan of consistent image sizes, perhaps one size for the landscape-oriented images and another for portrait-oriented ones? I also disagree with the presentation of the panorama: use of the regular image tag with the thumbnail option, at an appropriate pixel setting (e.g., 800 px), would be fine. My stance in general is that if someone wants a full image, they'll click to see. The article shouldn't shove images in readers' faces. On a related note: captions are tricky to get right, but the first image's is too much. Perhaps: "The Great Fire of London, by an unknown artist, as it would have appeared on the evening of Tuesday, September 4, 1666. On either end are the Tower of London and the London Bridge, and surrounded by the tallest flames, is St Paul's Cathedral." Other captions could be trimmed (and unnecessary bolding of "Firehooks" removed), and the image of Pepys moved up to "Firehazards." The Duke of York gets an image but not the new St. Paul, the Monument, or Wren? The prose seems flabby to me, at least in places, and I would like to see citations for Charles' proclamations, James' offer of the Life Guards and the like.--Monocrat 04:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The image problems you mention rather come down to personal computer preferences. I'm unsure what exactly do you mean by "flabby prose"? Finally, the new St. Paul's, the Monument, and Wren are nothing to do with the reality of the Great Fire of London they all came as a result of it it, but years later. This page is about the fire itself not the aftermath over the following 30 - 50 years Giano 08:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"This page is about the fire itself not the aftermath over the following 30 - 50 years." Yet you discuss The Monument in "Aftermath." At the very least, I would like to see the portrait of Wren. Will there be movement on citations for the King's proclamations and the like?--Monocrat 17:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism of prose really requires examples and a statement as to how widespread the problems are. WRT your comments on the images, please consider upgrading your computer. Tony 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the prose is fine. There is some discussion on the talk page, but the remaining issues are, to my mind, matters of style rather than substance. I have tried to tweak the image sizes and positions (although Bishonen won't like it :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ALoan, thank you for taking care of the images. They're much better. But I'll confess that I perhaps erred in my suggestion for the panorama image. The wide-image tag might be better. I'm no longer sure and will henceforth defer on that issue.--Monocrat 17:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I normally respect your points, but if you're going to tell me to upgrade my computer, are you going to tell that to every reader viewing from a public library or an older computer? What about accessibility for those with poor eyesight? "Consider upgrading your computer" is neither helpful nor especially polite. Your point about examples of the prose is fair, and I will heed it if time permits. Otherwise, disregard it.--Monocrat 17:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second ALoan's point about the prose. Yes, Mono, you're right—we need to be more inclusive WRT technology, and I probably shouldn't have made that comment. Tony 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[unindenting] No one should tell anyone to get a new computer, but we have to be realistic about images, in particular, just as we have to be realistic about browser software. There may be people reading Wikipedia using Netscape 4.2 or Internet Exploder 3.0, and there may be people with low resolution CGA monitors, but we can try to make our articles accessible to those people without necessarily saying that our articles cannot be featured without being pleasing on those platforms. Monocrat has the right to wish the images smaller, but not, I think, to suggest that the article is not Featured quality because of the idiosyncracies of a public library. (user:Eternal Equinox famously liked to shrink images to look good on his Toronto school library computer, never mind what it did to every other computer.) No, we cannot, in my view, make the possibility of someone out there with lynx (browser) or a GOPHER program shape our requirements for an FA. Geogre 03:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, a lot of the people who are complaining about the prose are complaining opposite to academic and professional standards and finding themselves pleased by moving toward bad writing. There are people currently inserting passive voice constructions to make things "better." People are weakening verbs ("London experienced" is new; this is the pathetic fallacy at best and a weak indication at least), changing punctuation into what they think is the more correct but isn't (e.g. changing every "Charles's" to "Charles'"; despite popular misperceptions, it is absolutely not true that genitives of singular nouns that have an -s ending are without an additional -s; if people were to look at, oh, grammars, they'd find that the rule is far more complex than that and that it is hypercorrective error), and generally making the sentences more windy and weak. If anyone wants to assert that her or his knowledge of grammar and style is so good, so refined, and so offended by a well written article that she or he must object, then that is fine. All of these "fixes" are not fixes, and the people doing the complaining do not seem to actually go in and get ink on their fingers by doing improvements. Geogre 13:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; main issues cleared up. Thanks! Object. I'm not going to object over prose (it's fine, perhaps just at a higher register than most of us at Wikipedia are accustomed to) but I think it's a bit redundant in places. See the talk page for that. A couple possible issues:
  • Why have English units before metric ones? Isn't England using metric these days? I see that Celsius takes precedence over Fahrenheit; that's good.
  • Any citations for nearly all of "Tuesday" and the second paragraph of "Wednesday"?
  • There are some Pepys quotes in "Sunday" that aren't cited. This is critical; any reason for the omission that I'm overlooking? There sure is. Duh.
  • Should "Gluttony" be capitalized at the end?

Also, strong agreement with Geogre on the use of passive voice and genitives of singular nouns ending in -s. --Spangineerws (háblame) 22:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer for the English (Imperial) units vs. metric is that.... Well, it's haphazard. Kilometres are rarely used, but tempratures are almost always in Celsius, for instance. Packaging is in grams, but pounds and stones quite commonly used for humans. I'd leave the units as they are. Adam Cuerden talk 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree: the UK has obligations under EU law to use the metric system, and is moving towards widespread usage of it. The metric system should be used first, with the US/Burmese/Liberian equivalent in parentheses. Tony 13:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't anybody else feel there would something wrong and artificial about listing metric units first in an article about 17th century England? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do! The whole idea seems excessive to me. MLilburne 09:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, perhaps we should be more flexible: I see the arguments here. But please do provide a Celsius equivalent in parentheses. Tony 10:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a reasonable compromise. MLilburne 10:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent article. Member N 06:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are still unreferenced paragraphs. Please reference them; once refs density is increased I'll be happy to support.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Density of references?! Are there any particular facts in those paragraphs that you think must be cited specifically? Do you think they would not be found by looking in the general accounts that are cited numerous times already? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment from nominator. Thank you very much all who've paid my work nice compliments. There are three unresolved opposes right now: Gzkn's longish list up top ("lot's of long sentences that could be broken up", "rambling," "a variety of unsourced statements," "avoid forms of 'to get,'" etc), that I've partly fixed, partly replied to, and not heard back about; Monocrat's "flabby prose", dislike of the delimitation of the content and images, and request for more specific citations; and now Piotrus' wish for greater density of references altogether. That makes, basically, two opposes based on poor prose plus poor citing, and one oppose based on poor citing alone.
    • Prose. I don't know what to do about the imputed rambling and flabbiness, especially since the way of writing is singled out as excellent by some supporters. I see little middle ground for pleasing both groups.
    • Inline citing. The non-footnoted facts in each section are cited through a "covering note" of the form "The section "Wednesday" is based on Tinniswood, 101–10, unless otherwise indicated," now more specifically phrased, according to Sandy's suggestion. Only the sections that have any otherwise unreferenced facts get these covering notes. I suppose Piotrus and I just don't entirely agree about what is and isn't referenced, not that I mean to be difficult. I bet some of the disharmony is Pepys' fault. As indicated in note 14 and discussed above,[1] [2] [3] stuff that's shown in the text to come from Pepys and that's clearly dated by inference, doesn't get any further referencing than that. Large portions of the section "Sunday" are straight from Pepys—I hope it's apparent and delimited which bits they are—and therefore that section is rather lightly footnoted. I don't see footnote density as a beauty per se, but anybody who believes it would be informative can easily add five or ten notes stating that various facts and claims in "Sunday" come from Pepys' entry for Sunday. It doesn't have to be me, it won't take any research or anything. Further, I don't quite understand Piotrus' request for a minimum of one note per paragraph. Notes are to do with facts, paragraphs are to do with layout. And, well, I've just never seen a one-per-paragraph "rule" before this discussion. It was formulated a bit further up by Sandy, who did not choose to oppose over it, but Piotrus does. Incidentally, for the general point Sandy makes about the problem of the "covering note" in a dynamic editing environment, I understand it, but they're kind of an emergency measure. If I didn't have them, and also wasn't ready to take even agreed-on historical facts as established, which Monocrat, Gznk, and Piotrus seem to imply I shouldn't (if I understand them), I'd need rather more than one note per sentence. At that point it might be time to stop talking about "prose" at all, and to envisage FA texts as mere grids or warps for a rich, deep weave of footnotes. Wikipedia's best?
    • Featured? This drift towards deeper and deeper layering of FAs in the paraphernalia of scholarship is one of the reasons I'm no longer any too invested in having this article Featured, so from my POV none of the above is much of a big deal any more. (Though it will be or it won't be, in either case quite without reference to my feelings, as is proper.) Another is that I foresee this article will be difficult to maintain at FA quality, and it's not a job I'd apply for. It's a popular subject that all the British and many other anglophones probably read about at school, and it's likely to always attract plenty of editing: improvements, but also drive-by additions of speculation, misunderstanding, and random, unreferenced factoids. The "main contributors" to FAs seem to be expected to keep the articles FA quality (at least this expectation is frequently reiterated on the various FA and FAR talkpages), and yet these contributors are particularly susceptible to charges of "ownership." The tightrope act of fixing up without offending and without getting called too many names has gone well enough with "my" other FAs, with their odd and to most people uninteresting subjects, but with this one it's already not looking like my kind of job. I don't think I was born with the tact for it. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
      • Bishonen, I apologize again for any insult I may have offered. The prose is quite good in general. I merely think there are a enough instances requiring clarification to make me unable to support the article. The image concern has been addressed. While I'm not keen on the use of such a broad covering note, especially since you're drawing from a specific edition and volume of the The Diary, I haven't made it an issue. (Perhaps you could note in the References section the relevant range of pages from the copy of the Diary you're using? See Template:Cite book for how to do that.) I've only asked for two specific citations (and a few for the several instances of the King's proclamations), as opposed to Piotrus' desire for greater density of them. It seems like I've heard elsewhere that human teeth can survive extreme heat, but I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source. Since their ability to do so seems important to the hypothesis that casualties from the fire were greater than believed, I think a request for a citation is reasonable. I suspect that the King's proclamations and the Duke of York's offer of the Life Guards comes from Pepys. In that case, the covering note is sufficient for those.--Monocrat 21:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Outdenting.) Sorry, no, I'm afraid I won't give the page range for Pepys' diary entries for September 2– 7, 1666, as I don't think the result would look professional or creditable for us. I suggest you do it, if you think yourself a judge of the effect, or somebody else—it's the encyclopedia anybody can edit. I certainly don't regard this as "my" article, and the information will be very easy to find, once you have the book. (I'd have to go back to the library for it just like anybody else.) Why does it have to be done by the person who's convinced it's a bad idea? Did you click on my links above? They lead to where Geogre and MLilburne explain what's wrong with giving page refences to Pepys. Giving the page range you request would look rather like giving a page range for Exodus from a particular edition of King James' Bible in the context of discussing Moses. (=It would look bad.)
    • Since the Duke of York's offer is part of a narrative where Pepys tells the King about the fire, and note 14 says "All... details involving Samuel Pepys come from his diary entry for the day referred to", the Duke's offer is indeed from Pepys' diary, yes. I certainly don't want anybody to doubt it, so I've put in a note refering to Pepys' diary entry for Sunday, September 2, for that whole paragraph. If it makes people long for similar references for all events involving Pepys, they should just add them.
    • No, Charles' proclamations aren't to do with Pepys, they're covered by the covering notes for the sections in which they appear. They're also official state papers, it's not like there's any room for doubt or disagreement about them. In fact they're mentioned at some length in all my print sources. Anyway, I think I do cite them.
    • The entire bit after note 47 (as of this moment) is referenced by note 48. In other words it's from Hanson, including the details about teeth being the most heat-resistant part of the body, and about the 1666 London poor mostly not having any. I'm not a fan of the common Wikipedia way of referencing whole chunks or paragraphs by putting a note at the end (or sometimes the beginning) of them, as I think it's a bit sloppy and can easily leave areas of ambiguity. (I'm fussy about clear citing, believe it or not; I'm not actually indulging some whim against scholarly citations here—they're pretty much what I do for a living—only resisting what I see as empty formalia.) I did think it was clear enough in this instance, as the passage starts with Hanson, is devoted to describiing Hanson's unique theory, and keeps quoting and mentioning him. It's all on pp. 326–33 in Hanson's book, as stated in the note. If you want me to do more about the teeth, you'll have to tell me what.
    • Please take the time to read the discussion here, and the article as a whole narrative, and I think you'll find your objections are in fact already met. Bishonen | talk 03:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The trouble with covering notes is that sometimes, just sometimes, it's unclear exactly what is covered and when. (One moment of unclarity and spoil moments of otherwise crystal clarity.) I'm unfond of covering notes generally, and I personally disagree with you that numerous footnotes are or would be a bad thing in this context, but that really is neither here nor there vis-a-vis my objection. Thank you for sorting out the citations issue. The point about the page range was a suggestion only. Disregard it as you see fit. Now, the only bone of contention between us lies in a few elements of unclear or confusing prose.--Monocrat 08:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And so you will remain with an "Object" because of you wre confused by some of the prose? When there is a problem with reading, one must always ask, "Is it me, or is it the author?" If it's the former, you will be unable to find a rule to explain the problem, and no one else will notice it. If it's the latter, you will be able to explain coherently and concisely what the problem is. The author, trying to please readers, has to ask, "Is it me, or is it the reader?" At this point, she looks somewhat absolved. If you "cannot support," then that is not the same as lodging an "object." The citations you seek are in some cases really counterproductive. Citing page numbers in Pepys? If a person had cited, in the text, "Matthew 6:1-12," I would find "[edition] p. 632" silly, if I ever even looked at the note. I would grab a Bible or go to Wikisource and look at Matthew, chapter six, not go to a library or bookstore to hope to find the edition the author used. A singular work without any textual variation is itself. At any rate, there is a big difference between being constructive and being picayune. Geogre 12:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Outstanding FA material in my opinion. For the life of me I don't understand what all the fuss is about the prose - "Lot's of long sentences that could be broken up"; surely forcing a short choppy sentence style runs counter to "brilliant prose", of which this article seems to be an excellent example? --Mcginnly | Natter 15:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Great_Fire_of_London/archive1&oldid=1138461873"