Talk:Harlow Fire
Harlow Fire has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: December 30, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Feedback from New Page Review process
[edit]I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 09:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
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:Harlow Fire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Penitentes (talk · contribs) 15:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 20:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I'll take this review. On first glance, it looks very close to GA quality already. However, since I know the holiday season can be busy for many, just keep me updated if you'll need more than a week to make any changes. Please use {{done}}, {{not done}}, etc to respond to my comments. (Some comments may go beyond the GA criteria - they are recommendations to improve the article but I will not insist on them.) Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Pi,
- Thanks very much for taking this on. I’ll be able to start making changes on Friday and hopefully will finish shortly after.
- Best,
- — Penitentes (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Penitentes: Looks great so far! I'll wait til you add the image(s) to formally pass it (just so I've officially reviewed a version with all changes), but no rush on that. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Pi.1415926535: I think that's buttoned up everything on the list :) — Penitentes (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Penitentes: Great work! Happy to pass this now. If you do decide to try the mapframe sometime, let me know if you desire any assistance. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Pi.1415926535: I think that's buttoned up everything on the list :) — Penitentes (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Penitentes: Looks great so far! I'll wait til you add the image(s) to formally pass it (just so I've officially reviewed a version with all changes), but no rush on that. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Infobox and lede
[edit]- In the infobox, the start and end dates can be on a single line.
- Done
- I would use California rather than Central California, especially in the infobox, as the former is a legally defined state and the latter is an inconsistently-defined unofficial designation.
- Done
- Per MOS:DATESNO, no comma between month and year.
- Done
- The lede should be expanded with about two more sentences: one detailing other effects of the fire (injuries and longer-term effects), and one detailing the investigation.
- Done
- Since you created the extraordinary File:1961 Harlow Fire.png, would it be possible to export the fire's footprint as geoJSON to use with {{mapframe}} or similar?
- Partly done I think this should be possible to do with QGIS, yes! I'll have to learn the ropes of {{mapframe}} first and so this may be a slightly longer effort. — Penitentes (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, this is absolutely not a requirement for GA, so don't stress yourself trying to get it done quickly. I suggested it because you've already done the hard work of mapping the footprint. I'm excited to see the result, and I'm more than happy to help with mapframes! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Partly done I think this should be possible to do with QGIS, yes! I'll have to learn the ropes of {{mapframe}} first and so this may be a slightly longer effort. — Penitentes (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Background
[edit]- Link to Droughts in California somewhere in this section
- Done
- I would link "fire season" to Climate of California#Wildfires
- Done
Progression
[edit]morning on
-->morning of
- Done
- It is possible to give the nearest town to the origin of the fire?
- Partly done I've added that it was near Mariposa, but I've not found a source that specifically mentions the closest town (which from maps looks to be Bootjack or Nipinnawasee). Still working on this.
- Done Found a reference that mentions the fire originated near Bootjack. — Penitentes (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Partly done I've added that it was near Mariposa, but I've not found a source that specifically mentions the closest town (which from maps looks to be Bootjack or Nipinnawasee). Still working on this.
- I think the July 12 source may be mistaken about the name of the mountain - it appears to be Stumpfield Mountain on both contemporary and modern maps.
- Done Excellent spot. I was able to find a new source that accurately names the mountain, so I've changed this.
- I recommend linking to Ahwahnee and Nipinnawasee in their first mentions in this section.
- Done
- Link directly to Chowchilla River#East Fork
- Done
- I've asked about the "AJ3" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#AJ3 Tiger?. I suspect it was a significant enough typo on the reporter's part that we won't be able to identify it, but we shall see.
- Based on the replies there, it seems almost certain to have been a North American AJ Savage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Amazing. I've kept the phrasing as-is and wiki-linked to the plane's page; but I'm happy to add a clarifying footnote if you think that would be helpful. — Penitentes (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Link to Coarsegold, California
- Done
- Link to Oakhurst, California
- Done
- I recommend adding some images to the article. The July 13 Fresno Bee and July 12 Madera Tribune have good images and no copyright notice, so any/all those images could be uploaded to Commons as PD-US-not renewed.
- Partly done Good idea. I will pick one or two of those and upload them, then report back when done.
- Done I've added two images from The Fresno Bee (one to the infobox and one to "Effects"), which is all I've got time for right now! — Penitentes (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)w
- Partly done Good idea. I will pick one or two of those and upload them, then report back when done.
Effects
[edit]- Done
- Add {{inflation}} for the $71,000
- Done
- Add "also" after "establishments"
- Done
- Add {{convert}} for the 22 tons
- Done (I'm assuming these are short tons, not long or metric, because of the U.S. context.)
- I would consider whether to move the second-to-last paragraph to the following section (and retitle that as "Investigation"). It might flow a bit better.
- Partly done On re-reading it I agree that it doesn't flow properly - what would you think about moving that paragraph to the very end of the "Progression" section, since it largely deals with the manner in which the fire moved and was fought? — Penitentes (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Done Moved this. — Penitentes (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Partly done On re-reading it I agree that it doesn't flow properly - what would you think about moving that paragraph to the very end of the "Progression" section, since it largely deals with the manner in which the fire moved and was fought? — Penitentes (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Other
[edit]- Remove the first entry from the See also section
- Done
- Sources 23 and 26 don't need "www.fire.ca.gov" - that's redundant to the publisher.
- Done
- Source check: 2, 11, 17, 22, and 39 all pass verification.
Overall
[edit]- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Wikipedia good articles
- History good articles
- GA-Class California articles
- Low-importance California articles
- WikiProject California articles
- GA-Class Disaster management articles
- Low-importance Disaster management articles
- GA-Class Wildfire articles
- Low-importance Wildfire articles
- WikiProject Wildfire articles