Login
Login

Talk:Cedar Fire/GA2

{{archive top}}

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Cedar Fire (2003)/GA2|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)/GA2. 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) 06:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
  2. :A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: {{GAList/check|yes}}
  3. ::
  4. :B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: {{GAList/check|yes}}
  5. ::
  6. Is it verifiable with no original research?
  7. :A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: {{GAList/check|yes}}
  8. :: referencing issues resolved. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  9. :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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: {{GAList/check|yes}}
  10. ::*Ref # 18 is problematic -please check that it is the most current URL.
  11. ::*Ref #31 is dead.
  12. ::*Ref #20 is dead.
  13. ::{{ping|Shearonink}} {{Done}} --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  14. :::{{ping|Zackmann08}} Many thanks for taking care of those. This week, am slightly swamped with other commitments but I will get back to the article & its Review as soon as I can. Just don't want anyone to think I had forgotten about it. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  15. :C. It contains no original research: {{GAList/check|yes}}
  16. :: With the fixing of the referencing issues this issue is resolved. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  17. :D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: {{GAList/check|yes}}
  18. :: Ran copyvio tool - no problems found.
  19. Is it broad in its coverage?
  20. :A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: {{GAList/check|yes}}
  21. ::
  22. :B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): {{GAList/check|yes}}
  23. ::
  24. Is it neutral?
  25. :It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: {{GAList/check|yes}}
  26. ::
  27. Is it stable?
  28. : It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: {{GAList/check|yes}}
  29. ::
  30. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
  31. :A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: {{GAList/check|yes}}
  32. :: :File:Wind shifts.jpg is lacking source & author information.
  33. ::{{ping|Shearonink}} {{Done}} --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  34. :::Thanks. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  35. :B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: {{GAList/check|yes}}
  36. ::That photo of the fire crossing the highway...((shivers)).
  37. :::And kudos to whoever uploaded it and used it in the article. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  38. Overall:
  39. :Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|pass}}
  40. ::Any further comments on other possible issues and the article's status are on hold for a few days due to other commitments and also pending a few more readthroughs. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  41. :Comment. This article was previously nominated for GA status: Talk:Cedar Fire (2003)/GA1. Its structure, wording, citation issues have all been improved and cleared-up since then. I particularly commend {{u|Zackmann08}} for their writing concerning the aftermath of the fire and the various controversies as well as fixing all the various referencing issues. I am certain there are some improvements that could be made but at this time I cannot think of any. Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}