Wikipedia:Peer review/Wildfire/archive1

Wildfire

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

I've been the only long-term editor here for the past few months. Per a previous suggestion, I have made changes to much of the article and would like further feedback. I have additional sources that may be used to beef up smaller sub-sections (e.g. those in Wildfire), but would like to know if I'm moving in the right direction. Overall, I think all of the sections are rather detailed, but not sure if I've added too much or too little.

Regarding the Wildfire section, can I just remove it or perhaps incorporate the information somehow in the prose? I can use the pic in Wildfire and don't see much notability in the use of random stats over the years.

All in all, I just need someone to tear the article apart with some much-needed constructive criticism throughout. Really, don't hold back.

Thanks, Mr Bell  ( talk ) 21:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by Dana boomer

Hi! It looks like you've done quite a bit of work that this article sorely needed - it's great to see a large topic like this getting the attention it deserves. I know you said to rip it apart, so here is my list of comments:
 * First, I've never seen the superscripted "rp" template that's in use, that ends up giving notations like "[67]:1560 [68]:14". I'm assuming this is some sort of a repeated reference formatting? If so, I find it odd that there is an apparently random combination of the "rp" template and conventional named references in use in the article. Honestly, like I said, I've never seen this template used in an article before...
 * Done. I've converted it to a notes format with a separate references section as seen in Great Fire of London.


 * Text shouldn't be sandwiched between images, like it is in the Detection section.
 * Better?


 * Ref #15 (California wildfire winds die down) deadlinks.
 * New link added.


 * What makes Refs #5, 34 and 37 (How Stuff Works) reliable? It looks like the wildfire author is a freelance writer with a journalism degree, and the fire author has an English degree. Even articles on How Stuff Works written by people with Ph.D.'s in the subject are challenged at GAN and FAC.
 * Done.


 * Make sure that all web refs have publishers. For example, #19 doesn't.
 * Done.


 * The citation needed tag needs to be resolved, and make sure that everything is referenced. There are several paragraphs and tag ends of paragraphs that aren't referenced. Make sure that references at the end of paragraphs or other chunks of text cover everything that preceeds them.
 * In progress.


 * Reference templates need to be standardized. The template that starts with "citation" does not play well with the templates that start with "cite xxx" (i.e., cite web, cite book, cite journal, etc). Therefore, they need to be made so that the templates either all start with "citation" or with "cite xxx".
 * Done.


 * The globalize tag at the top of the page needs to be dealt with. I see a particular bent towards describing just the US in the Prevention and Suppression sections.
 * In progress.


 * Sections should not contain just a link to another article, as the Notable wildfires section does. This section should either be expanded to include a prose rendition of some of the biggest, baddest wildfires (around the world, throughout time), or the section should be deleted completely and the link moved to the See also section.
 * Section deleted completely and added to See also section. I couldn't figure out how to justly include only a few and leaving out others.

Overall, I think that the descriptions go into just the right amount of detail. However, there are a few sections (specified above) that need a more global feel. I hope these suggestions help. I'll have this peer review watchlisted for a while, so if you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note here or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made some changes and commented under the respective bullet points just for reference. I'll continue to update the list as they are completed. Mr Bell  ( talk ) 19:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)