The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot ( talk) 6:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks consistent citations, neglects recently published research, and is relying too heavily on primary sources. I had first raised these issues about 14 months ago, and some changes were made by Nikkimaria; however, the majority of the problems remain, and go beyond what I had initially looked at, as was pointed out today in more detail by Buidhe on the article talk page. Renerpho ( talk) 06:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Comments by Renerpho
A "substantially different" version of Hanson's The Dreadful Judgement (front matter).- What does that mean, and why is it good/bad/useful/interesting? Renerpho ( talk) 02:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
this book in a substantially different form under the title The Dreadful Judgement was first published in the United Kingdom in 2001 by Doubleday, a division of Transworld Publishers(page iv). The words "front matter" in the reference were unclear to me until I realised that they indicated that this was a quote from the front matter of the 2002 book. Until then, I wondered why a difference about the front matter should be substantial, and why that's noteworthy; or why one would only publish the front matter of the 2001 book (okay, maybe I'd have to be stupid to think that, but the reference just isn't clear). -- There is one more problem: Because I don't have the 2001 book, I can not verify that any of the Hanson citations actually are what they claim to be, and I have serious doubts that they are. The
I am relaying the
reply of
User:Bishonen (the FA nominator), who said they won't join the discussion, but that
This new source, which was mentioned on talk, sounds like a must if the article is to remain featured
.
Renerpho (
talk) 04:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
reply
Checking the footnotes 80-91, which link to various websites:
it reduced the risk of French ships crossing the Channel and the North Sea being taken or sunk by the English fleet") on that page, but I was not successful. Maybe I am blind, or it's just not there. If the page range is reduced from the unnecessarily large "80-97" to the exact page where this appears, that should solve the problem. Or do we actually need the entire 18 pages to verify a half sentence? Renerpho ( talk) 15:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Another monument marks the spot where the fire stopped: the Golden Boy of Pye Corner in Smithfield" is currently cited from here. This is an image of the Golden Boy of Pye Corner monument, but if I am not mistaken, nothing on that page says what the monument is marking, or that this is where the fire stopped. The article for the Golden Boy of Pye Corner seems to have citation problems of its own, with a citation needed tag, and no source for the question at hand (linking to the same web page as its only source, and missing a source for the inscription itself). Renerpho ( talk) 15:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Historians disagree as to whether the fire played a part in preventing subsequent major outbreaks": Right now the article follows with
The Museum of London website claims that there was a connection, while historian Roy Porter points out that the fire left the slum suburbs untouched.Looking at the museum website (the linked archived version from 2006), I find this: "The Great Fire of 1666 could not be responsible since it was almost totally confined to the City, and even there, the parishes most affected by plague (to the north and east) were untouched by the fire." That does not sound like a claim that there was a connection. Renerpho ( talk) 15:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I am checking all instances where the article gives dates for particular events. So far I have noticed:
Hubert was convicted, despite some misgivings about his fitness to plead, and hanged at Tyburn on 28 September 1666. This disagrees with the article on Robert Hubert himself, where his date of death is given as 27 October 1666. [9] Which of these is correct? Renerpho ( talk) 05:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Assuming that we keep the current citation style (which I do NOT recommend), the following sections need additional citations. The better option would be to completely overhaul the references, to address the issues raised above. In that case the points below remain valid, in that these sections need new references, but so would the entire rest of the article:
The section "Sunday" is based on...reference, unlike for the other days. Why is that? Renerpho ( talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Charles' brother James, Duke of York, offered the use of the Royal Life Guards to help fight the fireneed a proper source, or be changed to
Pepys claims that Charles' brother James, Duke of York, offered the use of the Royal Life Guards to help fight the fire. If any of the secondary sources (Tinnisworth? Porter? Hanson? anyone?) come to the conclusion that his diary as a whole can be treated as neutral and reliable, or if there is another reliable source for the information, then that can be cited. Until then, anything Pepys writes should be treated with the appropriate care, as it may be driven by a hidden political agenda. Renerpho ( talk) 05:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
A special Fire Court was set up..., two paragraphs of the Aftermath section don't have a single reference. Where is this stuff coming from? Renerpho ( talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The section "Aftermath" is based on Reddaway, 27 ff. and Tinniswood, 213–37, unless otherwise indicated- Which is it, Reddaway, or Tinniswood? Which of the 25+ pages? Which editions (the books listed are hard to identify, as no ISBN are given)? With that kind of vagueness, we may just add a single citation to the first sentence of the article, saying
This article is based on the books listed at the end, unless otherwise indicated. Renerpho ( talk) 05:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
We also don't know if new text has crept in since the note was added, remains. The problem is that the current citation style makes the article very rigid, and makes it very difficult to edit it without breaking its integrity. Any user who may want to add something would have to be warned with flashing red letters that they have to make clear which parts come from the "old" reference (and possibly copy/paste that reference to the sections that aren't supposed to be affected), and which ones come from the "new" one. Someone will have to check whether the current article text (every sentence of it) is supported by the existing references. (Where I have access to the sources, I'll be happy to help with that where I can.) Renerpho ( talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Comments from SandyGeorgia moved to talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Hold FAR – I'm not sure if I'm up to the task, to be honest. But I'd prefer if the discussion was kept open at least for a short while (another week or so?). Some work is being done (Nikkimaria has added inline citations, for example), and while many of the issues remain unaddressed, I'm not sure where this is going yet. I second SandyGeorgia's question: Does anyone have access to the Jacob Field book, or some of the other sources needed? Also, is there anyone besides Nikkimaria who is willing to work on this article? Because this is getting too big for the two of us (well, for me at least). Right now, I even struggle to summarize what has to be done, let alone actually do it. Renerpho ( talk) 06:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply@ Casliber and DrKay: Renerpho has still not edited since 2 January. They left extremely long commentary on this page which is now difficult to sort through. Nikkimaria has incorporated the new book, and extensively reworked the article. Absent further feedback from the nominator, do we close without FARC, or move to FARC for !voting, or hope someone else will weigh in? @ Buidhe, Extraordinary Writ, Hog Farm, and Z1720: for more feedback. I'd !vote to close it; if/when Renerpho returns to editing, they can reopen (after about a six-month wait) if they still find issues. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm at a keep here, as there doesn't seem to be major issues remaining. Hog Farm Talk 15:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot ( talk) 6:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks consistent citations, neglects recently published research, and is relying too heavily on primary sources. I had first raised these issues about 14 months ago, and some changes were made by Nikkimaria; however, the majority of the problems remain, and go beyond what I had initially looked at, as was pointed out today in more detail by Buidhe on the article talk page. Renerpho ( talk) 06:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Comments by Renerpho
A "substantially different" version of Hanson's The Dreadful Judgement (front matter).- What does that mean, and why is it good/bad/useful/interesting? Renerpho ( talk) 02:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC) reply
this book in a substantially different form under the title The Dreadful Judgement was first published in the United Kingdom in 2001 by Doubleday, a division of Transworld Publishers(page iv). The words "front matter" in the reference were unclear to me until I realised that they indicated that this was a quote from the front matter of the 2002 book. Until then, I wondered why a difference about the front matter should be substantial, and why that's noteworthy; or why one would only publish the front matter of the 2001 book (okay, maybe I'd have to be stupid to think that, but the reference just isn't clear). -- There is one more problem: Because I don't have the 2001 book, I can not verify that any of the Hanson citations actually are what they claim to be, and I have serious doubts that they are. The
I am relaying the
reply of
User:Bishonen (the FA nominator), who said they won't join the discussion, but that
This new source, which was mentioned on talk, sounds like a must if the article is to remain featured
.
Renerpho (
talk) 04:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
reply
Checking the footnotes 80-91, which link to various websites:
it reduced the risk of French ships crossing the Channel and the North Sea being taken or sunk by the English fleet") on that page, but I was not successful. Maybe I am blind, or it's just not there. If the page range is reduced from the unnecessarily large "80-97" to the exact page where this appears, that should solve the problem. Or do we actually need the entire 18 pages to verify a half sentence? Renerpho ( talk) 15:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Another monument marks the spot where the fire stopped: the Golden Boy of Pye Corner in Smithfield" is currently cited from here. This is an image of the Golden Boy of Pye Corner monument, but if I am not mistaken, nothing on that page says what the monument is marking, or that this is where the fire stopped. The article for the Golden Boy of Pye Corner seems to have citation problems of its own, with a citation needed tag, and no source for the question at hand (linking to the same web page as its only source, and missing a source for the inscription itself). Renerpho ( talk) 15:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Historians disagree as to whether the fire played a part in preventing subsequent major outbreaks": Right now the article follows with
The Museum of London website claims that there was a connection, while historian Roy Porter points out that the fire left the slum suburbs untouched.Looking at the museum website (the linked archived version from 2006), I find this: "The Great Fire of 1666 could not be responsible since it was almost totally confined to the City, and even there, the parishes most affected by plague (to the north and east) were untouched by the fire." That does not sound like a claim that there was a connection. Renerpho ( talk) 15:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I am checking all instances where the article gives dates for particular events. So far I have noticed:
Hubert was convicted, despite some misgivings about his fitness to plead, and hanged at Tyburn on 28 September 1666. This disagrees with the article on Robert Hubert himself, where his date of death is given as 27 October 1666. [9] Which of these is correct? Renerpho ( talk) 05:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Assuming that we keep the current citation style (which I do NOT recommend), the following sections need additional citations. The better option would be to completely overhaul the references, to address the issues raised above. In that case the points below remain valid, in that these sections need new references, but so would the entire rest of the article:
The section "Sunday" is based on...reference, unlike for the other days. Why is that? Renerpho ( talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Charles' brother James, Duke of York, offered the use of the Royal Life Guards to help fight the fireneed a proper source, or be changed to
Pepys claims that Charles' brother James, Duke of York, offered the use of the Royal Life Guards to help fight the fire. If any of the secondary sources (Tinnisworth? Porter? Hanson? anyone?) come to the conclusion that his diary as a whole can be treated as neutral and reliable, or if there is another reliable source for the information, then that can be cited. Until then, anything Pepys writes should be treated with the appropriate care, as it may be driven by a hidden political agenda. Renerpho ( talk) 05:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
A special Fire Court was set up..., two paragraphs of the Aftermath section don't have a single reference. Where is this stuff coming from? Renerpho ( talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The section "Aftermath" is based on Reddaway, 27 ff. and Tinniswood, 213–37, unless otherwise indicated- Which is it, Reddaway, or Tinniswood? Which of the 25+ pages? Which editions (the books listed are hard to identify, as no ISBN are given)? With that kind of vagueness, we may just add a single citation to the first sentence of the article, saying
This article is based on the books listed at the end, unless otherwise indicated. Renerpho ( talk) 05:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC) reply
We also don't know if new text has crept in since the note was added, remains. The problem is that the current citation style makes the article very rigid, and makes it very difficult to edit it without breaking its integrity. Any user who may want to add something would have to be warned with flashing red letters that they have to make clear which parts come from the "old" reference (and possibly copy/paste that reference to the sections that aren't supposed to be affected), and which ones come from the "new" one. Someone will have to check whether the current article text (every sentence of it) is supported by the existing references. (Where I have access to the sources, I'll be happy to help with that where I can.) Renerpho ( talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Comments from SandyGeorgia moved to talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Hold FAR – I'm not sure if I'm up to the task, to be honest. But I'd prefer if the discussion was kept open at least for a short while (another week or so?). Some work is being done (Nikkimaria has added inline citations, for example), and while many of the issues remain unaddressed, I'm not sure where this is going yet. I second SandyGeorgia's question: Does anyone have access to the Jacob Field book, or some of the other sources needed? Also, is there anyone besides Nikkimaria who is willing to work on this article? Because this is getting too big for the two of us (well, for me at least). Right now, I even struggle to summarize what has to be done, let alone actually do it. Renerpho ( talk) 06:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply@ Casliber and DrKay: Renerpho has still not edited since 2 January. They left extremely long commentary on this page which is now difficult to sort through. Nikkimaria has incorporated the new book, and extensively reworked the article. Absent further feedback from the nominator, do we close without FARC, or move to FARC for !voting, or hope someone else will weigh in? @ Buidhe, Extraordinary Writ, Hog Farm, and Z1720: for more feedback. I'd !vote to close it; if/when Renerpho returns to editing, they can reopen (after about a six-month wait) if they still find issues. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm at a keep here, as there doesn't seem to be major issues remaining. Hog Farm Talk 15:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply