Talk:Great New York City Fire of 1845/GA1

GA Review
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)