Talk:Fountain Fire

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fountain Fire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 16:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll do this one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Excellently written throughout: clear, well-written and engaging.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The reference list is massive, but all the citations I could check did indeed check out. I ran it through Earwig's Copyvio detector; the only substantial passage of similarity was quoted and cited to the source, so no issue there.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I am particularly impressed by how the article is not simply a narrative of the fire, but also handles its impacts extremely well.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Note in particular the section on 'Causes', which neatly handles an area that is necessarily speculative without devolving either into gossip or withholding material.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars: constructive changes are still taking place, but the article has been broadly stable since at least the end of December 2022.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images that exist are good, and excellent use has been made of US government media. Some more images of the actual fire might be helpful, if such exist in a useable form.

7. Overall: An excellent article, and a worthy GA.

   Pass/Fail:

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that at the time, the Fountain Fire was the third most destructive wildfire in recorded California history? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/112345288/the-fountain-fire/
  • ALT1: ... that at the time, the Fountain Fire had become the most expensive fire to contain in recorded California history? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/112738220/from-hotels-to-honey-it-all-adds-up/ , https://www.newspapers.com/clip/112328184/drought-made-summers-fires-fiercer/ , https://www.newspapers.com/clip/112351650/shasta-battling-back-from-blaze-page-1/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Eurovision Song Contest 1998

Improved to Good Article status by Penitentes (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 21:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Fountain Fire, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Both hooks check out, and are interesting. The article was improved to GA four days ago, and has the correct inline citations. The article is neutral and I do not find copyright violations. The QPQ is done. Bruxton (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Penitentes, Onegreatjoke, and Bruxton: I'm not clearly seeing how the "third most destructive wildfire" claim is backed up by the sources in the article body, none of which seem to say it's in third place (even though the Newspapers.com clipping above does)...? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Cielquiparle: Hey! I might be misunderstanding, but I think the claim is sufficiently supported—in addition to the clipping (which is included as a reference for that particular sentence in the article), the Cal Fire archived list of most destructive wildfires lists the Fountain Fire as #4, with one of the three above it being a later 1999 fire. I moved those two references to be mid-sentence, directly after the 'then the third-most destructive claim', with the other Cal Fire reference supporting the 'no longer in the top 20' claim. If you think it's not clear enough that the fire was #3 in 1992 but not today, let me know! - Penitentes (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Penitentes: Thanks for clarifying. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)