Talk:Storrie Fire

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Bruxton in topic Did you know nomination

GA Review

edit

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.


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

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 05:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply


Looks interesting! I will be able to review this later today. LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 05:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much! I appreciate you taking the time. Penitentes (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
No problem :) Okay! I have placed this article on hold for now and left some comments below. Please ping me once you have addressed my concerns otherwise I may not respond. Thanks, LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@LunaEatsTuna: I think I've addressed all the comments you left—happy to change anything else should it be necessary! Thanks for the thorough review, I think I agree with pretty much everything. Penitentes (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Glad to know my comments are valid. Well, I think that is everything; the article looks fantastic! I am now pleased to pass this article for GA status per your changes implemented. Congrats! Also, it is good to see more editors working on fire-related articles :)  LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyvio check

edit

Earwig Copyvio Detector says everything is good to go.

Files

edit

All images used are relevant, of acceptable quality and copyright-free:

File:2000 Storrie Fire map 1.png: CC-BY-SA 4.0;
File:USA California Northern location map.svg: CC-BY 3.0;
File:More of Roger Puta's Union Pacific Feather River Canyon Shots (27023277160).jpg: valid public domain rationale;
File:2000 Storrie Fire post-fire condition.jpg: valid public domain rationale;
File:2012 Chips Fire before photo 3.jpg: valid public domain rationale.

Prose

edit

Refs

edit

Passes spotcheck—no concerns with refs 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 30 or 43. Nice work!

Other

edit

Section formatting, coords, navbox and cats good.

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.

Did you know nomination

edit
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 Bruxton (talk16:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Improved to Good Article status by Penitentes (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Storrie Fire; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply

  Done I checked this out for promotion, Prep 7 has too many US hooks. Prep 1 is the last prep and is full for now, so we will wait for a spot. Good work! Bruxton (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think ALT1 and 2 are missing information. I will promote ALT0 since it is confirmable. Bruxton (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply