This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
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 is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
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