Talk:Valley Fire/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Icebob99 (talk · contribs) 19:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. Icebob99 (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC) I'll list all the issues I find and any suggestions I may have under each respective criterion from Wikipedia:Good article criteria.

1. Well-written: * "However the fire moved so fast many people were never told to evacuate and this caused problems."-- this sentence (besides being incorrect in comma usage, which is not grammar-related) is not very concise. Please rephrase.

@Icebob99: I'm not really sure what this sentence was even trying to say. It was also unsourced so I have just removed it. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• I won't count the citations in the lead as violating the lead MoS page. If this were a longer article, I would list this as an issue, but given the length, it would be more efficient to simply include citations in the lead. Even so, they could be transferred if they contain information in the body of the article (this is a suggestion only and not GA issue).
• Layout: External links section comes after References section per the MoS page.
• Last sentence of "Fire Progression" section: Reword the "On Sunday" phrase. We don't know what Sunday it is.
• Meets words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation guidelines

1. Verifiable: inline citations mostly check out. I placed a citation needed tag for some stats in the first sentence of the "Aftermath" section, fix that and everything will be good for this criterion. No copyvios or close phrasing found.
2. Broad coverage: At 3.8kB readable prose, this article does cover thoroughly cover the topic. Usually, I like good articles to be a little bit longer, but I certainly won't fail it for being short when it covers the topic in its entirety.
3. Neutrality checks out.
4. Definitely stable, last edit on 13 October 2016.
5. Images are present with suitable licenses.

Alright, that constitutes my review. I will give 7 days (up until 2 January 2016) for these issues to be fixed. Most are in the well-written criterion with one in the verifiable criterion. Good luck! Icebob99 (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Icebob99: thank you for taking the time to review this! I believe that all of your concerns have been addressed. If I missed any please let me know. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: thanks for fixing; I believe you missed the issue about layout: the external links section comes after the references section per the MoS on layout. Icebob99 (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Icebob99: Right you are! My mistake. Thanks! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

All issues having been met, this article officially passes this review and meets all the criteria for GA status. Congratulations! Icebob99 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)