Talk:Fumifugium

Modern English

The modern English version is mine. Not sure about WP:NOR on translation, but this one can hardly be objectionable as any high-level English speaker would get the same. JackyR 03:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Class Review

You’ve added some good information to this, in particular the explanation of the sea coal that they burned and why it was so bad-smelling and otherwise unpleasant to burn. The citations you added give the article more credence. If I were to offer a suggestion as to things you could add I would suggest you briefly explain why lime-burning and brewing added to the air pollution, since it is not completely self-evident. I would also add a link to air pollution in the see also section, since it is related and not exactly the same thing as smog.Leav5419 (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

This is a good start. The information you added was relevant and the added citations help the credibility. I would suggest adding a section that builds some context for the reader as far as the industrial situation during that time. Or maybe add a link that would explain that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comb7190 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Influence

Maybe add a section on why this document is now (still?) considered such a seminal piece of work in the air pollution world. It's widely cited - and indeed quoted from in virtually every contemporary book about British air pollution some 350 years after its publication. I may do this myself but just noting it here for now. 45154james (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Done! 45154james (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"It is one of the earliest known works on air pollution..."

Or is there an earlier one? Peter Brimblecombe's book The Big Smoke (p40) cites at least one earlier book addressing air pollution in London: Hugh Plat's A Fire of Coal Balles (1603) and says (of Fumifugium) "However, it must not be considered in isolation because it reflects much that was being written and said by influential people of the time". So I think it's perhaps misleading to describe FF as definitively the earliest work and also attach Brimblecombe to that statement as its citation? That's not to say that we can't rewrite the sentence a little bit to make it clear that it was, in effect, the first actual book on air pollution. But the proposed edit, which I've reverted, doesn't seem quite right to me? 45154james (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)