The 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 |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 07:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll get a review posted for this within the next few days.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 07:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
General notes:
continued to growis used four times. "grew" is more concise. Same with
continued to moveversus "moved".
Background factors:
In the past several decades,– This is a relative timeframe. Specify that it's the decades prior to this particular event.
precipitation (rain or snow)– We can trust the reader to know what precipitation means, or failing that, to look it up.
Exclusion of fire– It's not clear what this subheading means until after reading the section.
added to a surfeit of fuels– maybe "excess" instead of "surfeit".
caused by lightning or set by indigenous inhabitantsjust makes it sound like the indigenous inhabitants had arsonists among them.
such fires were prohibited and routinely extinguished– After reading the previous sentence, "prohibited" makes it sound like California banned lightning.
This practice created elevated fuel loads– This might be confusing because this "practice" is essentially preventing another practice. Clarify that it's the lack of fires that led to buildup.
Then, in the months preceding the fire– "Then" is unnecessary if we're starting a new paragraph or a new section.
water year (the period between October 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021)– Does "water year" need to be defined, especially since it's wikilinked? Maybe it can just say "its second-driest water year in 2020–2021". Likewise for "meteorological summer".
though thousands of feet below Sequoia National Park– This makes it sound like it's underground. Clarify that it's a lower altitude.
notched 64 days on which– "notched" feels informal. "in which" instead of "on which".
helped fuel moistures reach– "fuel moistures" might need rewording so it's clearer what it's referring to.
Fire progression:
and personnel quickly set to work– "quickly" can be dropped without changing the meaning
a preponderance of– This can be removed. I'm not necessarily opposed to the wording, but this use doesn't add anything and it affects readability
As a result– "Because"?
Colony and Paradise fires merge– This could be simplified to "Merge".
fires finally met– "finally" can be cut.
"extreme head fire run"– If this is a quote, it should be clear whose analysis this is. Otherwise it should be paraphrased.
keeping a lid on the fire– Is this a technical term?
by about several thousand acres per day– "several" is already an approximation, so "about" is unnecessary.
Fire impacts Redwood Canyon and Redwood Mountain Grove– This subheading is wordy. "Fire impacts" can be cut.
But smoky conditions kept– Cut but
Officials hashed out plans– Informal
Favorable weather arrives– A subheading shouldn't have a subject and a predicate.
a wetting rain– The reader can assume that the rain is wetting.
a significant atmospheric river– Who decides that it's "significant"?
Indeed, by late October– "Indeed" can be cut.
Giant sequoia impacts:
and even helps them reproduce– It's not clear how this is relevant or what is implied by "even".
Giant sequoia groves witnessed wildfires of low or moderate severity frequently– Is this just a general thing that happens? If so, it can be written in present tense.
mentioned above– The article shouldn't reference itself.
several sustained hits– Is there a more technical term that can be used than "hits"? Also, in what sense is "sustained" being used here? It threw me off while I was reading.
on Facebook on– This reads awkwardly.
of the large sequoia population– While virtually all sequoias are in California, a reader who doesn't know this might be confused as to whether it refers to California's sequoia population or the global sequoia population.
In response to the growing wildfire threat– According to whom is this a "threat"? Articles shouldn't decide that things are threats, even if they are.
on the grounds that language in it removed too many guardrails on potentially harmful activities like logging in sequoia groves, and that it minimized community involvement– Make it clear that this is the opinion of environmental groups. Even better if specific opinions can be attributed to specific groups.
announced that it would immediately begin– Can "immediately" be cut?
Other impacts:
On October 11, another firefighter was struck by a falling rock– Any update on what happened to them?
burned to the ground– This seems informal.
the aforementioned giant sequoia mortality– The article should not reference itself.
the fisher's listing decision– This wording makes it sound like the fisher made the decision.
of critical fisher habitat– Is "critical habitat" a specific classification or a subjective analysis?
Mudslides in the fire scar caused road closures on the Generals Highway in the fall of 2022– This would probably fit better with the other closures rather than environmental effects.
the air quality index (AQI)– An acronym doesn't need to be defined if it's not used again.
as low as 60,000appear verbatim in both the article and the source, and
but was caught by fire crews digging lines by handis clearly copying the wording of
but was caught by crews securing handline around the fires edge. I'm inclined to give this article more leeway when it's describing reports of the fire because that's a basic series of events, but the wording is still too similar in some areas. When writing an article, instead of copying the information from the source to the article, try to take purely the core ideas and facts, understand them, and then write your own summary of what you found in the source. For this article, I suggest running an WP:EARWIG scan, and then comparing with each source and rephrasing any sentence where it catches something more than a proper noun. Otherwise, potential plagiarism issues will keep the article from being promoted.
This trend, driven by climate change, has helped produce hotter and more severe droughts– This is the kind of statement where you'd want to have citations right at the end of the sentence, even if it results in duplication. And it's not required, but I'd suggest one more high quality source linking climate change to the weather changes in California.
The KNP Complex Fire bore this threat out– Does this source specifically connect the KNP Complex Fire to the NPS assessment? If not, we shouldn't create this connection ourselves. Alternatively, if the NPS source itself connects the two, then that source can just be moved down to cover this sentence.
Acreage increases may be due to firing operations as well as natural fire growthextends beyond that and might need to be sourced. And side note, as it accompanies a table, I believe this is a valid exception to "avoid self-reference".
Spot checks:
and Ash Mountain areas? Otherwise good.
Spot checks are good. I noticed close paraphrasing issues, but I've addressed those more broadly above.
The article covers all of the aspects I'd expect of this type of article (background, events, and impacts). It does not go into excessive detail.
Only a few minor wording issues, but they're addressed under criterion 1. No ideas are given undue weight.
No recent disputes.
Most images are public domain as works of the U.S. federal government. The remaining images are all licensed for free use. All images have useful captions. Great work on the fire area maps you've made; that sort of thing is really valuable.
The 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 |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 07:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll get a review posted for this within the next few days.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 07:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
General notes:
continued to growis used four times. "grew" is more concise. Same with
continued to moveversus "moved".
Background factors:
In the past several decades,– This is a relative timeframe. Specify that it's the decades prior to this particular event.
precipitation (rain or snow)– We can trust the reader to know what precipitation means, or failing that, to look it up.
Exclusion of fire– It's not clear what this subheading means until after reading the section.
added to a surfeit of fuels– maybe "excess" instead of "surfeit".
caused by lightning or set by indigenous inhabitantsjust makes it sound like the indigenous inhabitants had arsonists among them.
such fires were prohibited and routinely extinguished– After reading the previous sentence, "prohibited" makes it sound like California banned lightning.
This practice created elevated fuel loads– This might be confusing because this "practice" is essentially preventing another practice. Clarify that it's the lack of fires that led to buildup.
Then, in the months preceding the fire– "Then" is unnecessary if we're starting a new paragraph or a new section.
water year (the period between October 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021)– Does "water year" need to be defined, especially since it's wikilinked? Maybe it can just say "its second-driest water year in 2020–2021". Likewise for "meteorological summer".
though thousands of feet below Sequoia National Park– This makes it sound like it's underground. Clarify that it's a lower altitude.
notched 64 days on which– "notched" feels informal. "in which" instead of "on which".
helped fuel moistures reach– "fuel moistures" might need rewording so it's clearer what it's referring to.
Fire progression:
and personnel quickly set to work– "quickly" can be dropped without changing the meaning
a preponderance of– This can be removed. I'm not necessarily opposed to the wording, but this use doesn't add anything and it affects readability
As a result– "Because"?
Colony and Paradise fires merge– This could be simplified to "Merge".
fires finally met– "finally" can be cut.
"extreme head fire run"– If this is a quote, it should be clear whose analysis this is. Otherwise it should be paraphrased.
keeping a lid on the fire– Is this a technical term?
by about several thousand acres per day– "several" is already an approximation, so "about" is unnecessary.
Fire impacts Redwood Canyon and Redwood Mountain Grove– This subheading is wordy. "Fire impacts" can be cut.
But smoky conditions kept– Cut but
Officials hashed out plans– Informal
Favorable weather arrives– A subheading shouldn't have a subject and a predicate.
a wetting rain– The reader can assume that the rain is wetting.
a significant atmospheric river– Who decides that it's "significant"?
Indeed, by late October– "Indeed" can be cut.
Giant sequoia impacts:
and even helps them reproduce– It's not clear how this is relevant or what is implied by "even".
Giant sequoia groves witnessed wildfires of low or moderate severity frequently– Is this just a general thing that happens? If so, it can be written in present tense.
mentioned above– The article shouldn't reference itself.
several sustained hits– Is there a more technical term that can be used than "hits"? Also, in what sense is "sustained" being used here? It threw me off while I was reading.
on Facebook on– This reads awkwardly.
of the large sequoia population– While virtually all sequoias are in California, a reader who doesn't know this might be confused as to whether it refers to California's sequoia population or the global sequoia population.
In response to the growing wildfire threat– According to whom is this a "threat"? Articles shouldn't decide that things are threats, even if they are.
on the grounds that language in it removed too many guardrails on potentially harmful activities like logging in sequoia groves, and that it minimized community involvement– Make it clear that this is the opinion of environmental groups. Even better if specific opinions can be attributed to specific groups.
announced that it would immediately begin– Can "immediately" be cut?
Other impacts:
On October 11, another firefighter was struck by a falling rock– Any update on what happened to them?
burned to the ground– This seems informal.
the aforementioned giant sequoia mortality– The article should not reference itself.
the fisher's listing decision– This wording makes it sound like the fisher made the decision.
of critical fisher habitat– Is "critical habitat" a specific classification or a subjective analysis?
Mudslides in the fire scar caused road closures on the Generals Highway in the fall of 2022– This would probably fit better with the other closures rather than environmental effects.
the air quality index (AQI)– An acronym doesn't need to be defined if it's not used again.
as low as 60,000appear verbatim in both the article and the source, and
but was caught by fire crews digging lines by handis clearly copying the wording of
but was caught by crews securing handline around the fires edge. I'm inclined to give this article more leeway when it's describing reports of the fire because that's a basic series of events, but the wording is still too similar in some areas. When writing an article, instead of copying the information from the source to the article, try to take purely the core ideas and facts, understand them, and then write your own summary of what you found in the source. For this article, I suggest running an WP:EARWIG scan, and then comparing with each source and rephrasing any sentence where it catches something more than a proper noun. Otherwise, potential plagiarism issues will keep the article from being promoted.
This trend, driven by climate change, has helped produce hotter and more severe droughts– This is the kind of statement where you'd want to have citations right at the end of the sentence, even if it results in duplication. And it's not required, but I'd suggest one more high quality source linking climate change to the weather changes in California.
The KNP Complex Fire bore this threat out– Does this source specifically connect the KNP Complex Fire to the NPS assessment? If not, we shouldn't create this connection ourselves. Alternatively, if the NPS source itself connects the two, then that source can just be moved down to cover this sentence.
Acreage increases may be due to firing operations as well as natural fire growthextends beyond that and might need to be sourced. And side note, as it accompanies a table, I believe this is a valid exception to "avoid self-reference".
Spot checks:
and Ash Mountain areas? Otherwise good.
Spot checks are good. I noticed close paraphrasing issues, but I've addressed those more broadly above.
The article covers all of the aspects I'd expect of this type of article (background, events, and impacts). It does not go into excessive detail.
Only a few minor wording issues, but they're addressed under criterion 1. No ideas are given undue weight.
No recent disputes.
Most images are public domain as works of the U.S. federal government. The remaining images are all licensed for free use. All images have useful captions. Great work on the fire area maps you've made; that sort of thing is really valuable.