# Talk:Carlton Complex Fire

This review is transcluded from Talk:Carlton Complex Fire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 15:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this one. —Ed!(talk) 15:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
It is reasonably well written:
Lead
The lead should include some discussion of material losses and numbers of cares burned (details of strong interest to the casual reader.)
Added the estimated economic damage, and it already includes number of homes burned. "Number of cares," is this a typo?
Events
It would be helpful to start with a discussion of local weather at the time of the fires starting. Was it a dry season? How much rain had they seen that month? Wind?
Added some relevant info, thanks for pointing that out.
"...sent the crew to fight a wildfire in Oregon rather than contain the local fires" -- Which fire in Oregon? Does it have a page?
I couldn't find any sources naming the specific fire (and 2014 Oregon wildfires and Category:2014 Oregon wildfires don't exist), so I couldn't add this. I think the main point here is that the firefighters were sent out of state (and that it's coincidental that the fires began near a smokejumper base). I could also move this to the lawsuit section since it relates to that, I only put it here in order to be more chronological.
"...At around 8:00 pm that evening," -- Please include local time zone here and elsewhere.
Fixed
Aftermath
Is there a better geographic sense of where was affected? What counties or towns were most strongly affected?
Added more detail
I note one lawsuit estimates damages. Are there any details on total estimated damages? I know in CA for instance they sometimes collect details on how many insurance claims were made for a big wildfire. The state Department of Insurance sometimes put these out. Also, insurers will sometimes report major write-offs, especially significant ones, to the SEC. That might require knowing who the big insurers are in the affected areas, though.
The only number I could find was $98 million in the HistoryLink essay, I've added this.
Any note of what the biggest WA fire was before this one?
Added this info
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
No problems here.
It is broad in its coverage:
Any info about other widlfires in other states during this season? Might make sense to talk a bit about if this was a particularly bad season or if it was just local weather conditions that left this an isolated case.
Added more about some fires in the same region in the following year, which I admit was a big omission. I didn't add anything about other 2014 Washington fires because they weren't that notable and there isn't a lot of sources out there about them. I think people will understand that this was a particularly bad season since I've added that it was the largest in the state since 1901.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
No problems here.
It is stable:
No problems here.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Copyright checks out on images.
Other:
Dup links, copyvio, dab links and external link checkers all return no problems.
On Hold pending some fixes. —Ed!(talk) 19:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ed!: Thanks for the feedback. I've done what I can, but I'm willing to work on it more if necessary, let me know what you think. —Surachit (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
@Surachit: This all looks good. Passing GA now. —Ed!(talk) 01:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)