Talk:49er Fire/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator:

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 12:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Howdy, I plan to get to this today! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much—take as much time as you need! Penitentes (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Well-written
The article just gets more bleak as you read (in a well done, evocative way, of course)! Among the examples, the citizens' efforts, the fire engine, and Parris' conviction stand out. Everything is easy to grasp; no issues with technical writing. I did a fairly hefty copyedit (please revert anything you disagree with), and here's what I've got:
 * Perhaps introduce the full "California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection" title before using the "Cal Fire" shortening.
 * ✅ wrote out and wiki-linked - Penitentes (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Be consistent with capitalizing geographic regions like "central" or "Northern California", either letter case works
 * ✅ settled on upper case - Penitentes (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * cross-mountain flow — I wasn't able to think of a suggestion, sorry, but this wording feels a bit odd, would have any ideas on ways to paraphrase it?
 * ✅ went back to the corresponding meteorological description and rephrased it in a way that I think feels more intuitive! - Penitentes (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * structures were burning on Owl Creek Road and McKitrick Ranch Road — for full clarity, perhaps add "the nearby" before "Owl Creek Road".
 * ✅ added "the nearby" - Penitentes (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Link "asbestos blanket".
 * ✅ wiki-linked - Penitentes (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * dashing the hopes of fire officials who had hoped to hold the fire there — this is a little ambiguous as to their intentions, perhpas something like: "who had hoped to keep it from spreading there"
 * ✅ changed to "who had hoped to hold the fire at containment lines there" - Penitentes (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * "Seventh" and "5th" should be consistent
 * ✅ spelled out "fifth" - Penitentes (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The identity and full names of Darlington and Edwards are only given upon their second mentions.
 * ✅ identities and names now given on first mention - Penitentes (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ordered Parris held in county jail — "ordered Parris to be held in county jail"?
 * ✅ how's "Edwards ordered that Parris be held in the county jail"? - Penitentes (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * quite alright! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research
A lot of local newspapers, many of the sources are detailed and well-written, YubaNet being of note. The Union is only cited in reference to the Nevada Fire Safe Council (and even then, their analysis being used in the article would probably be alright). Copyvio looked quite good during the spot-check, though consider changing that one phrase. Otherwise, two things:
 * The Roseville Press-Tribune or The Press-Tribune?
 * ✅ standardized on The Press-Tribune and attributed the place of publication to Roseville in reference parameters. Good catch! - Penitentes (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I would prefer if "the fire of the 1980s" was incorporated into the body, also, I imagine the comparisons with the Oakland firestorm and Fountain Fire need to be sourced.
 * ✅ incorporated the slogan part (and a brief explanation) into the article body's Effects section (just following the damage description. That allowed me to move the two references down there too. I ended up just removing the mentions of the Oakland firestorm and Fountain Fire, I think the 49er Fire sources speak for themselves re: the destruction and proximate background causes. - Penitentes (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check

 * Removed duplicate citation, looks good alongside other refs
 * Looks good
 * Looks good
 * Looks good
 * Looks good, but consider changing the wording, it is closely paraphrased.
 * ✅ thanks for catching that. I've rewritten the sentence. - Penitentes (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good
 * Looks good, but consider changing the wording, it is closely paraphrased.
 * ✅ thanks for catching that. I've rewritten the sentence. - Penitentes (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but consider changing the wording, it is closely paraphrased.
 * ✅ thanks for catching that. I've rewritten the sentence. - Penitentes (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Looks good
 * Looks good

Broad in its coverage
Very thorough, yet varied, use of Newspapers.com; I searched over there and on ProQuest and I'm confident that the article uses enough of these sources as is necessary. The "Background" section is quite helpful for understanding the rest of the body, and all the other sections hold their own weight. I also looked around Google Books and Internet Archive for any retrospective coverage, but nothing much.

Neutral
No issues on this front.

Stable
No recent content disputes or edit wars.

Illustrated
Nicely populated with images which are all relevant. Two are correctly labeled as own works, while the four others are in the public domain as government works.

Summary
A smooth read; I'm quite impressed! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you!
 * I've reviewed your copyedits and I think they're all good changes—I implemented the suggestions above. If I don't get to the other two points (Press-Tribune and "fire of the 1980s") today I will tomorrow or on Monday. Best, Penitentes (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I've hit those two now! Penitentes (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I quite like the changes, I am now happy to pass the article! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)