From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleGreat Fire of New York (1776) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starGreat Fire of New York (1776) is part of the New York and New Jersey campaign series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2010 Good article nomineeListed
December 17, 2010 Good topic candidatePromoted
May 30, 2020 Good topic removal candidateKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on September 21, 2012, September 21, 2015, September 21, 2019, and September 21, 2022.
Current status: Good article

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great Fire of New York (1776)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted within the next day or two. Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, the article meets the GA criteria. Consider the below suggestions for potential further improvement. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Writing and formatting

  • First sentence could be split to improve readability
  • "Many people believed or assumed that one or more people deliberately started the fire, for a variety of different reasons" - is there any way to reword this to be slightly less vague? I know that it's not a fact, but it can be worded more directly
  • "After Lexington and Concord" - clearer to specify "Battles of Lexington and Corcord"
  • "the tables were turned" - reword for tone
  • "marines returning the Pearl after fighting the fire" - word missing?

Accuracy and verifiability

  • Refs 19 and 22 are identical

Broad

  • If more information on the aftermath is available, it should be included

Neutrality

  • "Was it arson?" could be changed to "Cause" or a similar, more neutral title.
  • The article talks of British occupation of New York. Surely it would be historically more accurate to say that it had been recovered from the insurrectionists/revolutionaries. and was therefore not under occupation but restored to the rightful government?

Stability

No issues noted

Images

No issues noted

Thanks for taking the time to review it! I'll get to your prose suggestions soon. Magic ♪piano 23:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Effect on battle

This article notes that the British made some efforts to fight the fire. Has anything been written about what effect this had on the ongoing battle with the Continental forces? We know Washington escaped, I can't help but wonder if this was a factor. If so, it would be a welcome addition to this article, which already has a section on the effect on British occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.73.140.230 ( talk) 14:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Coordinates

The previous coordinates in this article pointed into what was the water at the time. The tip of Manhattan has grown through landfill in the intervening years. Abductive ( reasoning) 15:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Missing Reference to Chester

Several citations mention "Chester" without giving any information but the page number. Could it be "hidden" somehow? Can someone provide the reference, or should these be flagged as "citation needed"? Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 21:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC) reply