Talk:Carlton Complex Fire/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 15:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this one. — Ed! (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Lead
 * The lead should include some discussion of material losses and numbers of cares burned (details of strong interest to the casual reader.)
 * Added the estimated economic damage, and it already includes number of homes burned. "Number of cares," is this a typo?
 * Events
 * It would be helpful to start with a discussion of local weather at the time of the fires starting. Was it a dry season? How much rain had they seen that month? Wind?
 * Added some relevant info, thanks for pointing that out.
 * "...sent the crew to fight a wildfire in Oregon rather than contain the local fires" -- Which fire in Oregon? Does it have a page?
 * I couldn't find any sources naming the specific fire (and 2014 Oregon wildfires and Category:2014 Oregon wildfires don't exist), so I couldn't add this. I think the main point here is that the firefighters were sent out of state (and that it's coincidental that the fires began near a smokejumper base). I could also move this to the lawsuit section since it relates to that, I only put it here in order to be more chronological.
 * "...At around 8:00 pm that evening," -- Please include local time zone here and elsewhere.
 * Fixed
 * Aftermath
 * Is there a better geographic sense of where was affected? What counties or towns were most strongly affected?
 * Added more detail
 * I note one lawsuit estimates damages. Are there any details on total estimated damages? I know in CA for instance they sometimes collect details on how many insurance claims were made for a big wildfire. The state Department of Insurance sometimes put these out. Also, insurers will sometimes report major write-offs, especially significant ones, to the SEC. That might require knowing who the big insurers are in the affected areas, though.
 * The only number I could find was $98 million in the HistoryLink essay, I've added this.
 * Any note of what the biggest WA fire was before this one?
 * Added this info
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * No problems here.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Any info about other widlfires in other states during this season? Might make sense to talk a bit about if this was a particularly bad season or if it was just local weather conditions that left this an isolated case.
 * Added more about some fires in the same region in the following year, which I admit was a big omission. I didn't add anything about other 2014 Washington fires because they weren't that notable and there isn't a lot of sources out there about them. I think people will understand that this was a particularly bad season since I've added that it was the largest in the state since 1901.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * No problems here.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * No problems here.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Copyright checks out on images.
 * 1) Other:
 * Dup links, copyvio, dab links and external link checkers all return no problems.
 * On Hold pending some fixes. — Ed! (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I've done what I can, but I'm willing to work on it more if necessary, let me know what you think. —Surachit (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This all looks good. Passing GA now. — Ed! (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)