Talk:Wildfire suppression/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Independentgeoscience (talk · contribs) 21:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Catjacket (talk · contribs) 09:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking forward to digging into this topic! Thanks for your work. Catjacket (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In general yes, but see section below for some grammar and phrasing tweaks that I would suggest adding in.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I have some layout concerns. I don't see how the information on fire retardant substances belongs in "long term solutions" with forest thinning. For the "Incident Command" section, some of the content under the United States subsection is not specific to the US and should go in the main section. I also don't understand why the fuels rating is there - is it only used in the US? If so, are there competing fuel classifications used in other countries?

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Spot checks:

   History#Canada citations are a mess. First one is a dead link. The next few sentences are uncited, since they're not supported by the citation at the end of the first paragraph. Second paragraph completely unsourced. Third paragraph has a cited source, but the source doesn't support much of the content and directly contradicts some of it.

   History#United States also has a completely unsourced paragraph. This source does not support the idea that the Office of the Special Agent was created in response to the Great fires in the midwest.

   Fire Management#Direct Attack - the source does not support the claim that "All fire suppression activities are based from an anchor point".

   At this point I don't think I need to keep doing spot checks. Clear there is a big problem with the sourcing and citations for this article.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Source spot-check found clear examples of WP:PLAGIARISM in the History#Australia section, specifically of this source, which is copied word for word.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Small Improvements

• History
  • Australia
    • "aboriginals" should be capitalized and linked as Aboriginal Australians
    • "astonishingly" is MOS:PUFFERY
    • replace "NSW" with New South Wales
  • United States
    • remove "to this day", it's just the deadliest fire in American history
    • I don't like "the federal government saw that it needed to act." Make it more objective. Something like "As a result of the 1871 fire breakouts, the Office of Special Agent was created in 1876..."
    • "Fire shelters and equipment have grown" like they've gotten bigger? unclear what this means
    • "due to the harmful policies of the past" is MOS:EDITORIAL. Rephrase it.
    • IMO the paragraph specifically about 2026 is unnecessary, since it'll inevitably become outdated in a few months, but I don't feel strongly about it.

• Organization
  • United States
    • Looks like the USWFS is supposed to be funded for FY 2027, not FY2026, unless I'm misunderstanding the source

• Fire Management
  • Direct attack - Is "A spot fire is ignited further away from the main fire, while slopovers are directly on the other side of the fireline from the main fire." relevant to the topic of direct attack? seems more like just definitions that might apply to any fire.
  • Prescribed Burn Rehabilitation - don't start a new section with "However"

• Concerns in wildland fire
  • Fires at the wildland–urban interface
    • "typical towns and smaller cities near large patches of land" needs another adjective. large patches of forest land? protected land?
    • Sydney and Melbourne have not been built inside fuels. they've been built inside forests maybe?

Hold

Given the fact that all of the sources that I spot-checked had some sort of issue associated with them, including serious plagiarism issues, I'm going to put this GAN on hold for a week to provide time to fix the problems. I think the article requires a thorough evaluation of all of the citations and unsourced sentences. This might take more than a week, in which case I will fail the nomination and it can be re-nominated once the issues are addressed.

A brief response

Hi, thank you for the detailed response. I’ve reviewed your comments and I concur largely with them. I have not touched the Canadian & Australian sections (I work as a wildland firefighter in the U.S. and as such have little knowledge about them). This article was heavily edited by student editors who did a poor job and proper research and production. I will be making an effort to update this article to standard but unlikely to be able to complete it within 7 days due to my occupation and fire season. I am considering shifting this into a wildfire suppression in the U.S. article to be more precise. Thank you for your time and for reviewing this article. Independentgeoscience (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your service. I know fire season is no joke.

If you're going to shift the focs of the article completely, then I can fail this nomination now and wait for the next one. Or I can leave it open for the week in case you have time to fix it. Your call. Catjacket (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)