Talk:Freeway Complex Fire/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Zackmann08 in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Quick fail. Has multiple valid cleanup tags [unreliable source][self-published source] and [dead link], some dating as far back as 2010. Another premature drive-by nomination by Zackmann08, who needs to put more effort into cleaning up articles before nominating them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: There was a huge cleanup done BEFORE I nominated the article. See the diff. I overlooked the cleanup tags on a couple of the references, but the article was significantly improved before I nominated it. Seems like those two tags are pretty small things that could be corrected as part of the review process. Not sure why you chose to adopt that attitude. It was clearly NOT a drive-by nomination. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- After I quick-failed two previous wildfire nominations for the same reason (this and this), and seeing this one made subsequently to those fails, I became less patient. You might consider turning on the visibility of hidden categories (under advanced options in the appearance preference pane); it would make it easier to spot these problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: and I tried to learn from those mistakes and took a considerable amount of time to improve this article. You "quick failed" because of two sources that have now been removed. Are you willing to assume good faith and review the article as it now sits? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- If I were to do so, my first comment would be that the article seems quite incomplete: it is based only on contemporary news and firefighting reports, and has nothing from a time long enough after the fire to give some perspective on its consequences. It also has no material putting this fire into context with other fires from that fire season or that year (other than a see-also link): for instance, when did that area burn previously? Was there any overlap with other recent fires such as the Santiago Fire? Other questions the article raised but did not answer include: after the first day of the fire, what happened? When was it contained and when was it declared over? Were the schools closed because of fire danger, air quality, or some other reason, and for how long were they closed? Where were residents evacuated to, and for how long were they evacuated? How long were the freeways closed, and what sort of issues did this cause for transportation in the area more generally? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: thank you for the feedback. Those are excellent points! I will work to address them and consider re-nominating the page in the future. Appreciate your insight. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- If I were to do so, my first comment would be that the article seems quite incomplete: it is based only on contemporary news and firefighting reports, and has nothing from a time long enough after the fire to give some perspective on its consequences. It also has no material putting this fire into context with other fires from that fire season or that year (other than a see-also link): for instance, when did that area burn previously? Was there any overlap with other recent fires such as the Santiago Fire? Other questions the article raised but did not answer include: after the first day of the fire, what happened? When was it contained and when was it declared over? Were the schools closed because of fire danger, air quality, or some other reason, and for how long were they closed? Where were residents evacuated to, and for how long were they evacuated? How long were the freeways closed, and what sort of issues did this cause for transportation in the area more generally? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: and I tried to learn from those mistakes and took a considerable amount of time to improve this article. You "quick failed" because of two sources that have now been removed. Are you willing to assume good faith and review the article as it now sits? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- After I quick-failed two previous wildfire nominations for the same reason (this and this), and seeing this one made subsequently to those fails, I became less patient. You might consider turning on the visibility of hidden categories (under advanced options in the appearance preference pane); it would make it easier to spot these problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)