Talk:1861 Tooley Street fire/GA1

Latest comment: 4 years ago by No Great Shaker in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 14:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Basic GA criteria

edit
  1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.  
  2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.  
  3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.  
  4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.  
  5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.  
  6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
  7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
  8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.  
  9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.  
  10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.  
  11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.  
  12. No original research.  
  13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.  
  14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.  
  15. Neutral.  
  16. Stable.  
  17. Illustrated, if possible.  
  18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.  

For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

I remember encountering this subject eons ago in my student days. The tutor emphasised the fire's impact on the insurance industry and the development of specialist fire brigades. The article is an interesting read and I just made a few copy edits as I read it. It's fine, though I would think there is potential for expansion. Sourcing is good and presents a wide range of research. I like the images of the fire and it's a good idea to include the Braidwood memorial.

Just one small point that I can't check, but which has no effect on the review – is reference 14 labelled correctly per the source as "conflaguration" doesn't look right?

I'm promoting the article to GA. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply