Talk:Fountain Fire

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FAC closes.

	Fountain 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 23, 2023 Good article nominee Listed February 27, 2024 Peer review Reviewed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 10, 2023. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that at the time, the Fountain Fire was the third-most destructive wildfire in California's recorded history?
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Wildfire Low‑importance Fountain Fire is part of WikiProject Wildfire, which collaborates on wildfire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.WildfireWikipedia:WikiProject WildfireTemplate:WikiProject WildfireWildfire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fountain Fire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 16:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Excellently written throughout: clear, well-written and engaging.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The reference list is massive, but all the citations I could check did indeed check out. I ran it through Earwig's Copyvio detector; the only substantial passage of similarity was quoted and cited to the source, so no issue there.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I am particularly impressed by how the article is not simply a narrative of the fire, but also handles its impacts extremely well.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Note in particular the section on 'Causes', which neatly handles an area that is necessarily speculative without devolving either into gossip or withholding material.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars: constructive changes are still taking place, but the article has been broadly stable since at least the end of December 2022.

6. 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):

   The images that exist are good, and excellent use has been made of US government media. Some more images of the actual fire might be helpful, if such exist in a useable form.

7. Overall: An excellent article, and a worthy GA.

   Pass/Fail: