Talk:Rim Fire/GA1

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) 06:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

COMMENT. This Review is on hold until the following copyvios are cleared up. See "Note" further down-thread.

Please refer to: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Rim+Fire&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0. Content was lifted straight from the source and placed into the WP article.

For instance, And so on. No further work will be done on the Review until these issues are corrected. Shearonink (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP article: The fire started on August 17, 2013 at 3:25pm in the Stanislaus National Forest, east of Groveland, when a hunter lost control of an illegal campfire.
 * Facebook posts (Official fire department source): The fire started on August 17, 2013 at 3:25 pm in the Stanislaus National Forest, east of Groveland, when a hunter lost control of an illegal campfire.
 * WP article: The blaze was difficult to fight because of inaccessible terrain and erratic winds, forcing firefighters to be reactive instead of proactive.
 * Source: The blaze was difficult to fight because of inaccessible terrain and erratic winds, forcing firefighters to be reactive instead of proactive.
 * Please see above. Shearonink (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * first, thank you for taking the time to review this! Much appreciated. Second, I'm pretty sure this actually is not plagiarism, at least not by "us". I think that this was copied FROM wikipedia, not the other way around. Here's why... The section that was flagged by Earwig is heavily sourced by 9 different sources none of which are Facebook (the matching copyvio). But most notably, the copyvio on Facebook was posted on November 22, 2016. This article has only had 2 edits since the end of September and neither of them added this material. Take a look and let me know if you concur. Thanks again! -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: My mistake about the source being official, it is not. Per its website "Calfireupdates.com is a privately owned website that is not owned or operated by any state government agency." Point taken about who copied what, this FB account is basically a mirror-site.  Moving on.
 * word! Thanks for keeping me honest. When I first saw your comment I had the same thought and assumed it WAS plagiarized. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:36, 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:
 * 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:
 * References are problematic. For instance, the following URLs are dead: 22, 60, 34, 9, 44.  Please check http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Rim_Fire for additional issues.  For the dead URLs check to see if there is a web-archive/wayback machine URL that can be used.  For the cites marked as "300"s, please adjust them (if possible) to the most correct/most recent URL.
 * On Hold. This review is on hold until the referencing issues (the 5 dead links, etc) are corrected
 * ✅ Good finds. Addressed. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good job, all the refs are now fixed. Good research on finding alternate links for those deadlinked sources.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * To any future "reviewers of this review" - please see struck COMMENT copyvio-discussion above - re:Facbook content mirroring WP. The matter is settled to my satisfaction.
 * 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):
 * Reading it through again to check for any possible readability/overly-detailed issues.
 * 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:
 * The images pass muster in every way I can think of. The high severity image is especially visually arresting.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This GA Review is on hold pending one last read-through to see if I missed any possible concerns (stylistic or otherwise).
 * I did find a sentence of concern.
 * "The fire advanced to within a mile of Hetch Hetchy by Monday, August 26, which was a concern to O'Shaughnessy Dam officials due to ash falling in the water.
 * So far as I can tell information as cited does not appear within the closest subsequent reference - please find a reliable source for this statement.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This GA Review is on hold pending one last read-through to see if I missed any possible concerns (stylistic or otherwise).
 * I did find a sentence of concern.
 * "The fire advanced to within a mile of Hetch Hetchy by Monday, August 26, which was a concern to O'Shaughnessy Dam officials due to ash falling in the water.
 * So far as I can tell information as cited does not appear within the closest subsequent reference - please find a reliable source for this statement.
 * So far as I can tell information as cited does not appear within the closest subsequent reference - please find a reliable source for this statement.


 * This Review is on hold pending the fixing of this one last concern. Once it is dealt with, I will be able to complete my GA Review.
 * issue addressed. Added a good source. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have passed the article to GA status. Congratulations to User:Zackmann08 and all the editors who got the article to this level. Shearonink (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)