Talk:Storrie Fire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Storrie Fire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 05:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Looks interesting! I will be able to review this later today. ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 05:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I appreciate you taking the time. Penitentes (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :) Okay! I have placed this article on hold for now and left some comments below. Please ping me once you have addressed my concerns otherwise I may not respond. Thanks, ツLunaEatsTuna (💬)— 17:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LunaEatsTuna: I think I've addressed all the comments you left—happy to change anything else should it be necessary! Thanks for the thorough review, I think I agree with pretty much everything. Penitentes (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Glad to know my comments are valid. Well, I think that is everything; the article looks fantastic! I am now pleased to pass this article for GA status per your changes implemented. Congrats! Also, it is good to see more editors working on fire-related articles :) ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 23:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check[edit]

Earwig Copyvio Detector says everything is good to go.

Files[edit]

All images used are relevant, of acceptable quality and copyright-free:

File:2000 Storrie Fire map 1.png: CC-BY-SA 4.0;
File:USA California Northern location map.svg: CC-BY 3.0;
File:More of Roger Puta's Union Pacific Feather River Canyon Shots (27023277160).jpg: valid public domain rationale;
File:2000 Storrie Fire post-fire condition.jpg: valid public domain rationale;
File:2012 Chips Fire before photo 3.jpg: valid public domain rationale.

Prose[edit]

  • The article switches between using U.S. and United States; recommend one variant for consistency.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the citations from the lead per MOS:LEAD. All three of them are cited later in the body.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would perhaps mention how they caused the fire in the lead.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink Sierra Nevada.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "amounted to US$22 million." – the US prefix is unnecessary here per MOS:$. Same concern for the infobox.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink Feather River Canyon, Sierra Nevada and Lake Oroville in § Background.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 2008 BTU Lightning Complex," – missing Fire.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(the largest single wildfire in recorded California history)." – I reckon this could work with a comma instead of the parentheses.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2012 Chips Fire" – change to "Chips Fire" as it was just mentioned. Also:
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the same as above with the second mention of the 2021 Dixie Fire.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the fire was first spotted on a steep slope near Storrie" – do we know what time this was?
     Done - Sources are unfortunately not more specific than "Thursday afternoon", but I've included that phrase now. - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image would look better moved directly under § August 18–31.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the brunt of the direct attack" – brunt sounds slightly informal; recommend rephrasing (but, ignore me if this is correct in firefighting jargon, in which I am unfamiliar).
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "PG&E de-energized" – here is where it should say Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E); switch this with its mention in § Damage.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fire spotted more than one mile ahead of the main fire front into the canyon of Indian Creek." – this sentence reads quite jagged.
     Done - Great point. Rephrased and added a wikilink for 'spot fire'. - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contain the fire's 'heel' near Storrie" – is there perhaps a better word choice available?
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by September 5 (more than 5,000 acres (2,000 ha)" – recommend "by September 5, with more than 5,000 acres (2,000 ha)"
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also received 2/10ths of an inch of rain" – change to "also received 2/10ths of an inch of rainfall"
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over the Labor Day weekend," – could a date range be provided instead for non-American readers?
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "5,000 acres (2,000 ha) (referred to as an 'island') within" – change to "5,000 acres (2,000 ha)—referred to as an 'island'—within" to avoid two parentheses next to one another.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink holdover fire.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • § Casualties is too short to be its own section IMO.
     Done - Agreed, I use that as a sort of template guide while writing and often there's enough content to justify its own subsection. Here not so much. Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotation regarding the Pacific Crest Trial is unnecessary.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was closed August 17 and reopened August 20." – add on as to remain consistent with the rest of the article.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "said only about 15% of the watershed area "burned intensely"" – recommend "had "burned intensely""
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the following October," – needs a more specific date as the previous sentence mentions 2019.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also recommend placing the image in § Lawsuit directly under § Settlement so it does not push the section header rightwards.
     Done - Penitentes (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]

Passes spotcheck—no concerns with refs 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 30 or 43. Nice work!

Other[edit]

Section formatting, coords, navbox and cats good.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • I've just incorporated that bit in the article itself and sourced it, though I may be late to the party there. - Penitentes (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Penitentes (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Storrie Fire; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. QPQ is done. Hooks are interesting and sourced. I think ALT1 is best. Thriley (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I checked this out for promotion, Prep 7 has too many US hooks. Prep 1 is the last prep and is full for now, so we will wait for a spot. Good work! Bruxton (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think ALT1 and 2 are missing information. I will promote ALT0 since it is confirmable. Bruxton (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Storrie_Fire&oldid=1200680007"