Talk:Cedar Fire/GA2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am giving this article a GA Review. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 06:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   referencing issues resolved. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   • Ref # 18 is problematic -please check that it is the most current URL.
   • Ref #31 is dead.
   • Ref #20 is dead.

   @Shearonink:  Done --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Zackmann08: Many thanks for taking care of those. This week, am slightly swamped with other commitments but I will get back to the article & its Review as soon as I can. Just don't want anyone to think I had forgotten about it. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   With the fixing of the referencing issues this issue is resolved. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran copyvio tool - no problems found.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Wind shifts.jpg is lacking source & author information.

   @Shearonink:  Done --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   That photo of the fire crossing the highway...((shivers)).

   And kudos to whoever uploaded it and used it in the article. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Any further comments on other possible issues and the article's status are on hold for a few days due to other commitments and also pending a few more readthroughs. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

   Comment. This article was previously nominated for GA status: Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)/GA1. Its structure, wording, citation issues have all been improved and cleared-up since then. I particularly commend Zackmann08 for their writing concerning the aftermath of the fire and the various controversies as well as fixing all the various referencing issues. I am certain there are some improvements that could be made but at this time I cannot think of any. Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.