Wikipedia:Peer review/Yellowstone fires of 1988/archive2

Yellowstone fires of 1988

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because it is a former Featured Article and was recently delisted. I was not able to understand what the main concerns were so am asking for outside review to determine exactly what this article needs to regain FA status. In 2022, more than 200 edits went into this article to make updates to the references, yet the FAR folks felt that the references were still inadequate/inaccurate or, well, I really dont know.

Thanks, MONGO (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Phlsph7

Hello MONGO, my experience with the featured article process is still a little limited, but I'll see if I can make sense of the review. The review is found at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/November_2022#Yellowstone_fires_of_1988 and some of the issues are summarized at Talk:Yellowstone_fires_of_1988#WP:URFA/2020 and Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Yellowstone_fires_of_1988/archive1#HF. The main issue seems to have been "source-text integrity issues", i.e. a problem with WP:Verifiability. From what I can tell, all claims in the body of the article have sources and all the sources are reliable (at least User:Headbomb/unreliable does not mark any unreliable sources). But apparently, some of the sources don't support the claims made in the article. For example:

• The infobox claims there were 250 fires but reference 1 says there were 248.
• It seems reference 7 does not support the claim that Structure losses were minimized by concentrating firefighting efforts near major visitor areas.
• It seems reference 2 does not support that there are more than 1,000 structures located in the park.
• It seems reference 18 does not support the claim that one firefighter and an aircraft pilot died in separate incidents outside the park.

Unfortunately, the problem of source-text integrity issues is not easy to address. You might have to go through the article claim by claim and make sure that each one is supported by the source given. For the claims in the lead without a source, you would have to make sure that they are also found somewhere in the article together with a source. Besides the source-text integrity issues, another factor might have been that it took very long to fix the issues mentioned in the review. The first review nomination happened 26 January 2022 and the delisting happened 19 November 2022. During this period, various issues were pointed out and addressed but some issues remained unaddressed. I hope this was helpful but I'm not sure whether I was able to provide much new information. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)