Talk:Snake Ridge Fire/GA1
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Actualcpscm (talk · contribs) 14:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- I would suggest that the lead be rewritten. In its current state, it's a bit ambiguous and confusing, largely because it's not immediately clear how and to what extent this fire was controlled. Was the fact that controlled burns were being carried out in the area relevant to the response? I'm also not sure what is meant by "This objective was completed", since the fire continued to burn after the given date. On a related note referring to the end of the Fire section, did the fire reach its greatest extent on the same day that it was considered contained? Is the fact that it did not grow further in area part of the criteria for being considered contained? For a general audience, this text is a bit hard to follow.
- I've reworked the lead a bit to make it more discernible. The fact there were ongoing controlled burns is relevant; I've clarified this in the body (it started in an area the USFS was going to burn). –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would suggest that the lead be rewritten. In its current state, it's a bit ambiguous and confusing, largely because it's not immediately clear how and to what extent this fire was controlled. Was the fact that controlled burns were being carried out in the area relevant to the response? I'm also not sure what is meant by "This objective was completed", since the fire continued to burn after the given date. On a related note referring to the end of the Fire section, did the fire reach its greatest extent on the same day that it was considered contained? Is the fact that it did not grow further in area part of the criteria for being considered contained? For a general audience, this text is a bit hard to follow.
- b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a. (reference section):
- b. (citations to reliable sources):
- c. (OR):
- d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a. (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a. (major aspects):
- See the suggestions mentioned in 1a.
- b. (focused):
- a. (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/fail:
- Pass/fail:
(Criteria marked 
are unassessed)
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.