Talk:London Fire Brigade

London Fire Brigade was a Social sciences and society 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 21, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

Pictures[edit]

This article is screming out for some pictures, also it really does need more sources citing in the body... follow the format I started a few weeks ago. Regards. Escaper7 07:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion and references[edit]

Have worked this up quite a bit see Metropolitan Police for why I think the LFB article needs expanding. I've also manged to accidentally get the list of references to repeat itself -any help tidying this up would be appreciated as I'm out of time. Escaper7 16:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC) ps: this is a bug in Wikipedia on many pages so should be fixed in due course.[reply]

Notable incidents[edit]

Can anyone help fill in the dates and flesh out details in this section? Also any additional Wikilinks would be useful. Escaper7 07:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to add to your burden but I think the Crystal Palace fire of 1936? warrents an entry, as does the Alexamder Palace fire of 1980. 86.165.245.26 (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Role Structure section[edit]

I reverted this section because it was only half re-written. The paragraph above the list of new roles had not been re-written and still had the refs to the old ranks. It should be rewritten but old ranks (as opposed to roles) should be kept in, as they are still in use by other FRS in the UK, and they should be kept in for historical purposes. Escaper7 10:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of fire stations[edit]

I've checked this in the light of recent edits changing the number. There are 112 including Lambeth and Lambeth River, which are each counted as individual stations. 111 fire stations and one river station if you like. I thought the confusion may have arisen from the closure of Manchester Square in 2006, in checking it's prompted me to add a section on the Draft Safety Plan which dealt with the closure of M.Sq and a redeployment of pumping appliances to outer London stations. Escaper7 14:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Londonfirebrigade.jpg[edit]

Image:Londonfirebrigade.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical organisation[edit]

This should be moved into the 'History' section of the article, I think it's useful, but in the wrong place in the article. Escaper2007 09:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect title for Ken Knight[edit]

Sir Ken Knight is known as the Commissioner or Chief Fire Officer not Brigade Manager and this reference should therefore be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.180.10 (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox you changed is standard across Wikipedia. The term Brigade Manager is used in many FRS these days, and will eventually become universal. Yes London is unique, but his insignia is tha same as a BM, CFO or Chief Firemaster so I've reverted your edit as otherwise there's a rogue piece of code in the page. It's also important to have a Wikilink to his own article high up. Regards Escaper27 14:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know of only a handful of fire briagdes where cheif officers are calling themselves brigade manager. Ken knight's title is not Brigade Manager and must be changed to reflect true accuracy, not your personal opinion. I am recommending this be formally changed with a wiki admin. The title of brigade manager has met with resistance and it has not been formally accepted by CFOA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.180.10 (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you are missing the point. The infobox is a standard box, it can't be changed from one Wiki article to the next so whoever designed the box, and it wasn't me, adopted the generic new term of brigade manager. If you try to edit the box you will introduce odd characters to the article or rogue code. While I'm here PLEASE start signing your entries on Wikipedia, your reluctance to observe Wikipedia conventions just wastes editors time in changing things. Have you read the article I started on Sir Ken? And another thing, the tone of your edits and comments is particularly irritating. "I know of a handful" etc, but WE don't know who you are - all you have to do is set up an account... or perhaps you have one?? And be very careful about making "recommendations to Wikipedia admins", again in a threatening tone. Me? I'm a former firefighter with the London Fire Brigade. Regards Escaper27 10:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the mind-bogglingly simple fix I've applied to resolve this issue - without the need for admin intervention. Escaper27 10:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a personal attack on you escaper just a general observation - it was aimed at wikipedia admin so that it could be changed. Please dont get so uptight, you do good work here and we're not getting at you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.245.202 (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scope[edit]

The article is unclear as to the scope of the fire brigade. After the Metropolitan Fire Brigade Act 1865, did it cover the same area as the Metropolitan Board of Works? MRSC • Talk 16:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

There is a contradiction regarding the relative size of the brigade between the first and second paragraphs:

Lead paragraph: "...is the third-largest fire service in the world..."
Second paragraph: "The LFB is the fourth largest fire brigade in the world, after the Tokyo Fire Department, the New York Fire Department and the Paris Fire Brigade..."

The first paragraph is cited to the LFB site, the site following the statement in the second paragraph is about hoax calls. I've not looked into it further. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:London Fire Brigade/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: repaired four and tagged 16.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
other various rescue operations "various"?

Lots of lists that need turning into prose.

Single sentences and short paragraphs need consolidation; likwise with short sections.

Poor prose, spelling and organisation throughout.

Lead does not summarise the article, see WP:LEAD
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
16 dead links, some of the other repaired links do not support statements.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The history section is cursory at best; other information that should be there and could be fairly easily found are fuller details of training, funding, political control, etc
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A very definite fail, I am afraid. please familiarise yourself with the good article criteria, work on the article and put up for per preview before considering renomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on London Fire Brigade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on London Fire Brigade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relative size[edit]

If it is indeed true that there are 5992 staff (this doesn't seem to be in any of the sources cited), then the rank of fifth largest in the world is also wrong as I can say that the NSW fire brigade has 7000 staff (admittedly not all fulltime). Unless someone can find an actual source for this information, it should be removed.Jaxcab (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on London Fire Brigade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on London Fire Brigade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about bringing this article up to Good Article standard, in tribute to these brave men? PatGallacher (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on London Fire Brigade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong rank titles[edit]

Someone has changed the rank titles back to the ones used before 2001, while also adding some never used by the LFB. Please check the given source. Creuzbourg (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]