Talk:Fountain Fire/GA1

GA Review

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

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: