Talk:Fountain Fire/GA1

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

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 16:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll do this one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Excellently written throughout: clear, well-written and engaging.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The reference list is massive, but all the citations I could check did indeed check out. I ran it through Earwig's Copyvio detector; the only substantial passage of similarity was quoted and cited to the source, so no issue there.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I am particularly impressed by how the article is not simply a narrative of the fire, but also handles its impacts extremely well.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Note in particular the section on 'Causes', which neatly handles an area that is necessarily speculative without devolving either into gossip or withholding material.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars: constructive changes are still taking place, but the article has been broadly stable since at least the end of December 2022.
 * 1) 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):
 * The images that exist are good, and excellent use has been made of US government media. Some more images of the actual fire might be helpful, if such exist in a useable form.
 * 1) Overall: An excellent article, and a worthy GA.
 * Pass/Fail: