From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Great Fire of 1901 was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. |
|
|
 |
Great Fire of 1901 is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which collaborates on fire service-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start |
This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? |
This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Assessment comments
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
|
Suggested article edit guidelines:
- To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification.
- After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
|
[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Delisted
In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the requirements of the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of November 27, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria. The article currently lacks sources including one needed for a quote. Go through the article and add an inline citation for any statement that a reader may question over its verifiability. If you can find sources online, feel free to include those, although book sources are always great. Additionally, the tag for expansion also needs to be addressed. For these reasons, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article's history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)