Wolf 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: August 15, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editThe 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:Wolf Fire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Penitentes (talk · contribs) 18:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 15:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'll review this article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
General comments
editAll done with prose for now, exceptionally written as I'm sure you know. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Prose and content
editleading to a fourth consecutive year of drought in the region
->continuing a three year drought in the region
?
- Changed to
marking its fourth year of below-normal precipitation
- reading the source again, it confirms it was a four-year dry spell but not that it was officially a drought. This wording feels smoother, like your suggestion, and with a little more fidelity to the source.
- Changed to
Vegetation moisture levels were very low and fire activity was consequently elevated
->Vegetation was very dry, so there were more fires than usual
?
- Changed to
Vegetation dryness approached record levels, and firefighters remarked on the surprising vigor of fires even in the spring
- Changed to
It became one of the earliest fire seasons in decades
->It was one...
- Done!
which informed fire crews' understanding of the Wolf Fire's potential for growth
are you talking generally about their understandings of fires or specifically the Wolf Fire here? If it's the latter it might be best to move the last clause out of the Background section.
- Specifically the Wolf Fire here. Good call - I moved this bit to the third paragraph of the Progression section.
roughly 12 miles (19 km)
this is partly a personal belief; I don't think anyone is thinking it's exactly 12 miles. If it's a round number, you don't have to include "roughly" or "approximately". Feel free to disagree.
- Good point, removed "roughly"
bolstered by eyewitness accounts from a bicycling tour group
this detail is unnecessary
- Removed
though the calls failed for lack of cellular service in the area
->thought without cellular service in the area, their calls failed.
- Changed to
but there was no cellular service in the area and their calls failed
- Changed to
The closed portion of Highway 33 remained so
->This route remained closed
(the highway -> Highway 33)
- Done
and it was five percent contained
->and five percent was contained
- Changed to
five percent of the perimeter was contained
- Changed to
they could contain the fire in Chorro Grande Canyon
->to the Chorro...
- Done
Winds out of both
->Winds from
?
- Done
Firefighters retained a defensive footing
stances ?
- Yeah, that does sound awkward. Changed to
Firefighters maintained a defensive stance
- Yeah, that does sound awkward. Changed to
with 15 percent containment
contained ? lot of question marks; I want to give you opportunities to pushback beyond the usual baseline- Changed to
with its perimeter 15 percent contained
and added commas for better flow!
- Changed to
, between the fire and the sanctuary
redundant
- Removed
the fire ran hard to the east
Is this metaphorical or just the terminology? Apologies for ignorance.
- Terminology - in wildfire wildfires are often referred to as running ("ran up the slope" etc.) but you're right that this is not very encyclopedic or intuitive. Changed to
the fire grew rapidly to the east
- Terminology - in wildfire wildfires are often referred to as running ("ran up the slope" etc.) but you're right that this is not very encyclopedic or intuitive. Changed to
but for the change in the weather
->if the weather hadn't changed
- Done
ticked down
less colloquial
- Changed to
dwindled
- Changed to
footprint
-> range/coverage
- Changed to
burned area
- Changed to
and one was stung by a bee
unless it was a really bad sting (bad allergy) I can't imagine why this should be mentioned. The way it's presented, it doesn't read as a bad sting, it appears like they were a wuss.
- Removed
four of which were unoccupied ranch buildings,[2] and two of which were outbuildings for a vacation home
bit repetitive with the "of which", can be made more concise
- Changed to
four of them unoccupied ranch buildings and two of them outbuildings for a vacation home
- Changed to
who, while not in distress,
unnecessary detail
- Removed
Large portions of the Los Padres National Forest closure order
it doesn't appear like "large portions" it appears like all? Unless some remained, which are not mentioned again?
- The source itself is clear that it was only a partial re-opening and lists some areas (like the Sespe Trail and several campgrounds) as still closed. I looked for, and wasn't able to find, any sources describing when those remaining closures were lifted.
more than five thousand years before the fire
bit too literary.
- Removed
and previously unknown Native sites
could you expand for me what previously unknown Native sites is referring to?
- Changed to
known archaeological sites as well as ones newly revealed by the fire
; hopefully that's clearer!
- Changed to
and professed in a report of their own to find the allegations—including those regarding the Wolf Fire—without merit
bit strangely formal, make more clear
Changed to and wrote in a report of their own that the allegations—including those regarding the Wolf Fire—were without merit
- Gloss stand-replacing
- Changed to
severe enough to kill most of the trees
- Changed to
Suggestions
editThe cost of containing the fire came to $15 million
->Containing the fire cost $15 million
- Done
expanded to 200 acres (81 ha)
->covered 200 acres (81 ha)
- And done!
Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Sources
edit- [4]
- [5]
- [8] - Appears to be a mistype, the fire was 30 acres by 4pm, not 3pm.
- [12]
- [20]
- [23]
- [27]
- [31]
Other
edit- Images: all appropriately tagged
- Neutral
- No OR/COPYVIO - Earwig 11.5% based off common phrases
- Stable
- Broad/summary style
Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Rollinginhisgrave, I believe I've gone through all of your (very helpful) comments so far! A bunch of good catches there with awkward turns of phrase. I also fixed the timestamp error with reference 8. Let me know if you find the changes acceptable and if you've got any more. Cheers!! — Penitentes (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- All looking good, closing with a pass. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)