Wikipedia:Peer review/Tiger Fire/archive2

Tiger Fire

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning to get the article to a GA grade.

Thanks, JoleBruh (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@JoleBruh: Hello, I'll check it against the "immediate failure" criteria (apart from 1):

• Copyvios: Y Pass Copyvio tool detects only limited similarity and nothing is an obvious copyvio
• Cleanup tags: Y Pass None present, none obviously needed.
• Edit warring: Y Pass No marked reverts in last 50 revisions, nominator is primary editor by far
• Previous GAN: Y N/A No such nomination.

I'll move on to to checking against the main criteria from here. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@JoleBruh: I've finished.

1. Well written: Y (a) and Y (b) passed. I made a minor change to the Aftermath section with a word I thought unnecessary, other than that I noticed no issues.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Y (a). Reference section obviously in accordance with guidlines,

Y (b). No obviously bad sources, one source backed up a possibly inaccurate date which I fixed, though you may want to comment in some of these sources in case of expansion.

Y (c) and (d). passed.

3. Broad coverage: (a) and (b) Y passed, covers pretty well and I assume no more significant content can be added.

4. Neutral: Y passed.

5. Stable: Y passed.

6. Appropriately illustrated: Y passed (a) and (b). You might also want to comment here that the Gallery section is due to lack of space. Some editors may assume it's a violation of WP:Gallery.

In general while this is my first time doing such a review it seems fully in line with the Good article criteria. I would recommend nominating it, but I'll leave this PR open for a while in case you'd like a second opinion. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. JoleBruh (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)