Talk:Wildfire/GA1

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


 * Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Initial review
This article very much has the makings of a GA. It is comprehensive, well referenced and has numerous in-line citations; and it is obvious that considerable work has gone into producing it. The Ecology, Prevention, Detection, Modelling and Suppression sections all appear to be satisfactory; but I have not yet checked any of the references or citations. The WP:Lead is however a bit too short and needs more work, and I tend to consider that last anyway.

The Characteristics section worries me at the moment, and I don't think that it is working satisfactorily. This section jumps directly into "factors" such as fuel type, moisture content in the fuel, humidity, windspeed, topology, geographic location, and ambient temperature; without first adequately explaining what wildfire is and the dangers that they pose. These factors should remain within Characteristics, but there needs to be a proper explanation of wildfire first.

Technical terms, it would appear from edit revisions undertake by the nominator, are being used in the article without adequate introduction or explanation. The prose is therefore defective in this respect.

The article is being placed On Hold.Pyrotec (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Current structure of the article
I'm happy to accept (subject to the necessary checks) that the technical content of the article is at the required level of a GA-class article. However, the structure of the article still causes me some concern. The WP:lead is too short, but I tend to look at that last, so it can be fixed last of all.

I'm fairly certain that the problems of poor article structure arise in the Characteristics section. This seems to jump in at the start with too much detail. I think that a solution is to produce a first new section and place it before Characteristics; and to use this to describe what wildfire is and to introduce some of the technical terms. The Characteristics section can then stay much the way it is.Pyrotec (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Recent edits have reduced these concerns.Pyrotec (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

The WP:lead is rather 'thin' and could do with some expansion; however, this does not detract too much on the overall article which is at GA-standard. I'm therefore awarding GA-status at this point in its development.Pyrotec (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)