Wikipedia:Peer review/Fountain Fire/archive1

Fountain Fire

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

Hello! I'm seeking peer review for this article on a 1992 California wildfire because I plan to nominate it for FA shortly and would like to check my blind spots, so to speak. I am specifically most interested in any feedback on points 1f ("free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing") and 4 (is it too detailed?), but any and all suggestions regarding any Manual of Style guidelines I've missed, poor wording, or wider organization/content issues would be welcome feedback.

Best, Penitentes (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Penitentes: It has been over a month since this PR has been posted. Are you still interested in receiving comments? Z1720 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the late response—Thanksgiving kept me busy. I'm absolutely still interested. Penitentes (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Penitentes: If you are interested in comments, I suggest asking at the Wikiprojects attached to this article. In addition, I suggest that you find an FA mentor since you are still working towards your first successful FAC; the mentor can comment in this PR, too. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've posted about it on the Wikiproject Wildfire talk page, I'll see where else I can ask—and contact an FA mentor. Penitentes (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Penitentes: It has been another month without comments. Are you still interested in receiving comments? Regardless, I highly recommend reviewing articles at WP:FAC so you can get a better understanding of the FAC process and build goodwill amongst the FAC community. Z1720 (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am still interested, but if you think it's unlikely it will receive any feedback I am happy to withdraw it—regardless, I'll take your advice and focus my efforts on reviewing GANs and FAs so as to build up exposure to the process and and meet the community. Penitentes (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Penitentes: The longer a PR stays open, the less likely it is to get reviews. If you are interested in comments, my suggestions above about Wikiprojects and getting a mentor are still applicable. Before nominating my first FA, I reviewed several articles at FAC and this helped me really understand the intricacies of the FA criteria. I look forward to seeing your name pop up in reviews. Z1720 (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Penitentes: It has been another month without comments. Have you sought out an FA mentor? I highly recommend reviewing articles at WP:FAC now to build goodwill amongst the FAC community so that your article gets reviews. Are there any questions you have about the FAC process? Z1720 (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720 and @Penitentes, I will try to take this one up if time permits, I cannot commit fully but I will try to post my comments soon. Matarisvan (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I inquired about FA mentorship and haven't heard back yet, but I'm willing to continue on without a mentor. That said, I will certainly try my hand at reviewing or co-reviewing at WP:FAC before I think about submitting this or any article, it seems like a good way to understand the process regardless of whether it builds goodwill or not! Penitentes (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(And as ever, thank you for your persistence and gentle nudges in the right direction, I'm prone to hopping between article projects here but I do genuinely appreciate it.) Penitentes (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

Change 'recorded California history' to 'California's recorded history'?

Done

Add comma after 1992 in the lead?

Done

Change 'ranks' to 'features' and remove the even. These words make it look like this is some sort of competition.

Done

Add 'of' after 'suppression cost'. Add comma after million.

Done

Remove both the instances of 'also' in the final sentence of the first paragraph of th lead. They are unnecessary and make it seem like we are happy at the damage records being broken.

Done

Change intermingled to interspersed.

Done

Consider moving the image in the background section to the August 20 subsection, because it does not illustrate the background but the contemporary impact. Also consider changing the image orientation to right, as advised by MOS:IMAGELOC and MOS:SANDWICH.

Done

Consider changing 'in the state's first such period' to 'in the first such occurrence in the state'?

Done

Change 'four of the six' to 'four of these six'.

Done

Link to runoff.

Done

Change 'high temperatures at' to 'high temperatures equal to'.

Done

Change 'fewer than normal available firefighters' to 'fewer firefighters than are normally available'.

Done

Change 'tasked to the destructive' to 'deployed to combat the destructive'.

Done

Link to Cascade Range.

Done

Is gusting the normal terminology? I would have preferred 'blowing at speeds', which would have been more understandable.

Done

Link to chimney effect.

Done

Link to vortices.

Done

Link to Redding.

Done

Link to Burney.

Done

Link to California Highway Patrol.

Done

Link to Cal Fire.

Done

Link to Oak Run.

Done

Link to Cow Creek.

Done

Link to Mill Creek (Tehama County).

Done

Pete Wilson should be linked on first instance like Wally Herger, not later on.

Done – did the same for the Governor of California wikilink

Link to fire shelter.

Done

Link to Highway 89.

Done

Link to California Office of Emergency Services.

Done

Link to Department of Fish and Game.

Done

Link to Sacramento Bee.

Done – italicized, also

Link to Journal of Forestry in source #3.

Done

Link to Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in source #19.

Done

Link to Historical Marker Database in source #57.

Done

Link to California Agriculture journal in source #98.

Done

Overall, you have written a detailed, impressive article, and I could find only a few issues which most would have overlooked, and I had to focus to find them. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the thorough review—I really appreciate it. I'll take some time tomorrow to resolve each of the comments you made. Best, Penitentes (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments all resolved. Penitentes (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more minor pointers: In the sources, link Cal Water, NOAA, National Weather Service, National Interagency Fire Centre and United Press International. I would also suggest removing the citation of the Fountain Wind project website, the newspaper article cited is enough. Matarisvan (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've gone through and linked all of those, as well as some additional publishers in other references. The URL for the NOAA source had been deprecated, so found a new URL and archive link for that. Also removed the wind project website citation, as suggested. Penitentes (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe those were all the issues I could find. The article is well written and I suggest you close this PR and nominate for FAC. Matarisvan (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'll close the PR now and nominate the article in due time (I'd like to make some small changes to the map image, and see if there's a fair use image and rationale of the fire itself anywhere out there). Penitentes (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]