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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 24, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

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.

North East England Mid‑importance

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firefighting

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Occupational Safety and Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA failed[edit]

According 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)[reply]

Eh?[edit]

This 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Felneymike 15 years later and it still reads like someone's creative writing assignment, absolutely bonkers MeButOnTheInternet (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selected anniversaries - Main page[edit]

Hi, 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)[reply]