Talk:2019–20 Australian bushfire season
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | 2019–20 Australian bushfire season was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 27, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | A news item involving 2019–20 Australian bushfire season was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates: |  |
.svg){kind=small} | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
is removing the cost too much to ask for
editI think its tarnished the money
- It's a perfectly reasonable infobox field. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes but surely deaths should be higher up in the infobox than costs Chidgk1 (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, I think having deaths as the last item makes sense. Your eyes will notice the deaths at the end of the box.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Fact check needed
edit- 81% of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area burned.
Is this accurate? It seems very high. Jack Upland (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- The source following that claim does NOT mention it. Delete? HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say so. I know the area fairly well and there's no way 81% was burnt.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- The claim has been restored. It is actually featured on page 6 of the report that's downloadable from the website listed as a source. But it can't possibly be true.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- This says "More than 60 per cent of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area was fire-affected and more than half of this burnt with high or very high severity."--Jack Upland (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- The claim has been restored. It is actually featured on page 6 of the report that's downloadable from the website listed as a source. But it can't possibly be true.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say so. I know the area fairly well and there's no way 81% was burnt.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2019–20 Australian bushfire season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 16:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
This is going to be a quickfail. The template in the lead section is correct that the lead is too long. The rest of the article is too long as well and could benefit with splitting into smaller articles. The problem is that this is one article trying to summarise numerous fires that don't have articles, and some of the major ones could probably do with on, leaving this to be just an overview. Another possibilty is splitting into state-based subarticles if splitting off the larger fires isn't viable.
Another problem is that here are 11 citation needed tags. I notice that you have not made any edits to this article. It is extremely rare for an article to just be lying around at or near GA level without a concerted effort made by editors to get it to GA level. I recommend not nominating articles you haven't made significant edits to. Steelkamp (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am extremely new to this but:
- Consider removing paragraph 2 to "Precedents", it isn't the focus of the article.
- The political ramifications of the fire season have ... resulted in controversy is better in the Political Response section, it isn't relevant to the overview specifically.
- Whereas these bushfires ... in damage, this line is irrelevant to the whole article.
- The Overview section is not chronologically written.
- The table in the Overview section should be moved to the Regions Affected. It is too extensive to be part of an overview.
- The See also: under the Precedents section should be moved to the start of the article.
- The Scams and Frauds section should be moved from the Donation section.
- Hephan (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
disparity between sidebar and article claims of area burnt
editthe sidebar claims that the burnt area was "Approximately 30000 square kilometer", and is entirely unsourced (also doesn't conform to the australian english style), while the body of the article sources the royal commission and claims "24.3 million hectares (60 million acres; 243,000 square kilometres; 94,000 square miles". personally i trust the latter value, given the fact that it has a source, and is much more congruent with of the papers i've read on the topic
the unsourced 30000km2 value is from fluffysandbox's edit on 08:42, 14 January 2023. i'm going to update the figure to the 243000km2 value for now, but just pointing this out in the talk
edit after checking: fluffysandbox is also a sockpuppet of a user who's got a history of making a load of erroneous incorrect edits 😔 You know i had to do it to em and i did what had to be done (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)