Talk:2016 Fort McMurray wildfire/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Acefitt (talk · contribs) 01:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

*Beginning a full review now seeking other issues, but it's already going on hold for point 1b: WP:LEADLENGTH and WP:CITELEAD. I'm also guessing we can find more than three sentences for the Recovery section as well. -- Acefitt 01:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Main issues are tense issues that make the fire seem on-going (MOS:DATED), very inadequate lead (WP:LEADLENGTH), and citations in the lead which will be removed upon expansion. (WP:CITELEAD) Also thinking about that destruction list in the Communities and infrastructure sub-section maybe looking better as a table. Review on-going. -- Acefitt 02:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a note the fire is still considered on-going, continuing to burn underground as a holdover fire. [1] 68.148.253.254 (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

For almost all intents and purposes, it is done. Some parts read like the city is still actively burning. -- Acefitt 20:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Changes look good, another review pending. -- Acefitt 04:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm reasonably happy with it, but there's still a few dated statements and a more experienced reviewer should probably confirm that it's acceptable. Certainly doesn't have too far to go. -- Acefitt 02:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Present tense statements like, The evacuation orders... Numbers in the Response and aid section could be updated to reflect new donation totals for example, as opposed to those from within just a few days of the fire. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Lead length, citations. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): Reference formatting inconsistent (work/publisher parameters) c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): The Oil sands operations mentions nothing about ops getting back up to speed. Were they permanently reduced? Recovery section is highly inadequate and should, at the very least, give an overview of how the re-entry process went and the status of rebuilding. Comprehensiveness of the article stops near the end of May. b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

GA second opinion

The timeline and tenses seem somewhat more muddled here than I would like in a GA. I think this is an ambitious effort for so soon, but I would not pass the article prose at this point if it were my review. Each section seems like it was written on the fly as the event unfolded, which is probably true, but what is needed for a GA isn't a blow-by-blow, but an overview of the timeline and a retrospective view of how different things were affected. For example, the two explosions are mentioned multiple times. Why? Mention the event and associated impact once. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to go ahead and not pass this one based on prose, as I didn't follow the event in detail and would need to do a lot of research to be personally happy with it, I'll probably come back to this and chip away at it and we'll eventually get it up to GA. -- Acefitt 19:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)