Talk:Great fire of Newcastle and Gateshead
 | Great fire of Newcastle and Gateshead was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 16, 2006. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that an explosion in 1854 sparked off a great fire (pictured) killing 53 and levelling significant parts of Gateshead and Newcastle? | |||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 6, 2008. | |||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA failed
editAccording to the GA critieria, I have failed this article for not having any inline citations. Although this is not a full requirement, it does establish the verifiability of the content in the article which is one of the criterion. Go through the article and for every sentence you find that may be questioned, add an inline citation to it. Look to GA/FAs for examples. Also, it would probably be best to break some of the headings up into subheadings to make it easier to search through the table of contents. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Keep up the good work and be sure to add inline citations before renominating. --Nehrams2020 09:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Eh?
editThis article reads like a copy and paste job from a contempary newspaper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felneymike (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Close. It's a cut & paste - with some editing - from a history book of the event which itself was - in my opinion - made up from contemporary news clippings. (A record of the Great Fire in Newcastle and Gateshead, 1855, George Routledge & Co, from Google Book Search.) I recognise that some of the language is not typical of many other article pages, but as a fulsome description of the event, I think it works well. The original text is in the public domain, and was cited as a reference, all of which is good practice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's very un-encyclopedic, and reads totally differently from other Wiki articles. I've made a couple changes, but it needs a lot of work. -- 67.168.238.184 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- In what way is it un-encyclopedic? It provides a detailed description of a series of events, each sentence of which is, as far as the sources I've found are concerned, factually accurate. It is totally different from, say, our article on oxygen, but not dissimilar to articles on similar disasters - take Boston Molasses Disaster, for example. Exhausted as you must be by changing "3am" into "3 am", perhaps you could muster the strength to describe some aspects of the "lot of work" required on the article. (I acknowledge that it does need inline citations...) --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- @Felneymike 15 years later and it still reads like someone's creative writing assignment, absolutely bonkers MeButOnTheInternet (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Selected anniversaries - Main page
editHi, just highlighting that if the yellow tagged issue with the lack of inline citations can be resolved, this article would be eligible for the selected anniversaries Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 6, which features on the main page. Whizz40 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)