Wikipedia:Peer review/Tiger Fire/archive2

Tiger Fire


I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to get the article to a GA grade.

Thanks, JoleBruh (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'll check it against the "immediate failure" criteria (apart from 1):
 * Copyvios: ✅ Pass Copyvio tool detects only limited similarity and nothing is an obvious copyvio
 * Cleanup tags: ✅ Pass None present, none obviously needed.
 * Edit warring: ✅ Pass No marked reverts in last 50 revisions, nominator is primary editor by far
 * Previous GAN: ✅ N/A No such nomination.
 * I'll move on to to checking against the main criteria from here. Duonaut(talk &#124; contribs) 07:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've finished.
 * 1. Well written: ✅ (a) and ✅ (b) passed. I made a minor change to the Aftermath section with a word I thought unnecessary, other than that I noticed no issues.
 * 2. Verifiable with no original research:
 * ✅ (a). Reference section obviously in accordance with guidlines,
 * ✅ (b). No obviously bad sources, one source backed up a possibly inaccurate date which I fixed, though you may want to comment in some of these sources in case of expansion.
 * ✅ (c) and (d). passed.
 * 3. Broad coverage: (a) and (b) ✅ passed, covers pretty well and I assume no more significant content can be added.
 * 4. Neutral: ✅ passed.
 * 5. Stable: ✅ passed.
 * 6. Appropriately illustrated: ✅ passed (a) and (b). You might also want to comment here that the Gallery section is due to lack of space. Some editors may assume it's a violation of WP:Gallery.
 * In general while this is my first time doing such a review it seems fully in line with the Good article criteria. I would recommend nominating it, but I'll leave this PR open for a while in case you'd like a second opinion. Duonaut(talk &#124; contribs) 01:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to review the article. JoleBruh (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)