Talk:Cedar Fire/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' I am giving this article a GA Review. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 06:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * referencing issues resolved. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Ref # 18 is problematic -please check that it is the most current URL.
 * Ref #31 is dead.
 * Ref #20 is dead.
 * ✅ -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking care of those. This week, am slightly swamped with other commitments but I will get back to the article & its Review as soon as I can.  Just don't want anyone to think I had forgotten about it. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * With the fixing of the referencing issues this issue is resolved. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran copyvio tool - no problems found.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * File:Wind shifts.jpg is lacking source & author information.
 * ✅ -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * That photo of the fire crossing the highway...((shivers)).
 * And kudos to whoever uploaded it and used it in the article. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Any further comments on other possible issues and the article's status are on hold for a few days due to other commitments and also pending a few more readthroughs. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article was previously nominated for GA status: Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)/GA1.  Its structure, wording, citation issues have all been improved and cleared-up since then.  I particularly commend  for their writing concerning the aftermath of the fire and the various controversies as well as fixing all the various referencing issues. I am certain there are some improvements that could be made but at this time I cannot think of any.  Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That photo of the fire crossing the highway...((shivers)).
 * And kudos to whoever uploaded it and used it in the article. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Any further comments on other possible issues and the article's status are on hold for a few days due to other commitments and also pending a few more readthroughs. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article was previously nominated for GA status: Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)/GA1.  Its structure, wording, citation issues have all been improved and cleared-up since then.  I particularly commend  for their writing concerning the aftermath of the fire and the various controversies as well as fixing all the various referencing issues. I am certain there are some improvements that could be made but at this time I cannot think of any.  Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)