Talk:2015 Esperance bushfires/GA1
Latest comment: 8 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: Zackmann08 (talk · contribs) 21:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC) I have written dozens of articles about wildfires and am the founder of the Wildfire WikiProject. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing)
- General Notes
- Be sure to read WP:WILDFIRE-STRUCT
- Be wary of WP:CITEOVERKILL. Having more than 2 citations at the end of a sentence shouldn't be necessary. If it is, I'd advocate breaking the sentence up.
- Random quotes that are not attributed to an individual are a no-no. Unless you saying saying that a specific person or entity said something, it shouldn't be a quote.
- For example: It turned out to be the "biggest fire in the regions history". is not good. However, if you were to say: Speaking at a press conference President Obama said was the "worst fire the region had seen in 50 years". that would be different. There has to be a reason you are quoting the person however. Otherwise just make it a statement and don't quote it.
- That being said you have 3 big block quotes in the article that I really don't think belong there. Merge them into the article better. Not as block quotes.
- Lede
- Terms such as "catastrophic" are not encyclopedic and should be removed
- A number of cases of WP:CITEOVERKILL.
- There is no need to directly quote an article: "... become the first bird in at least 200 years to become extinct in Western Australia". Turn this into a prose statement.
- Additionally "prompting discussion"?? Discussion by who? In what forum was it being discussed?
- "Reportedly up to 90%" is not an encyclopedic statement
- Background
- Watch for WP:OVERLINKing. there is no reason to link things like wheat, harvest or grain.
- Make sure all numeric values are using the {{convert}} template. This includes temperatures.
- Be careful about getting to detailed about the numbers. This isn't a science paper. Knowing that the temperature was "+1.78 °C" is unnecessary. If you MUST include the temperature, I would say "it was roughly 2 °C warmer than usual" (for example).
I would like to see the above points addressed in the entire article before I read through the rest of it for in depth review. A lot of the same comments keep coming up. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)