Talk:Esperanza Fire/GA2

GA review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Independentgeoscience (talk · contribs) 03:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk · contribs) 03:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

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):

   hold on this, im going to do another round of copyediting soon

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

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

   spot checked the book using ctrl-f search, picked some random sources and verification was successful. no OR afaik, well sourced, and the 32% earwig falls into "When there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing"

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   tone is a bit more narrative compared to other articles but well within acceptable bounds

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   give me a sec to do some more copyediting then I'll pass

• not a problem, but the article is a bit lacking in hyperlinks - ive added a few
• i made some changes to the flow of the article so far

The discussion above 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.