Talk:Jesusita Fire

Jesusita Fire has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 29, 2016. (Reviewed version).

California: Southern California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Wildfire Mid‑importance

	Jesusita Fire is part of WikiProject Wildfire, which collaborates on wildfire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.WildfireWikipedia:WikiProject WildfireTemplate:WikiProject WildfireWildfire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Droughts / Wildfires Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Droughts and wildfires task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

Created primarily as a placeholder until more details come in. Best luck for all in the fire zone. Upshotknothole (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The smoke is intense. Tonight the fight may be on the east side, and on the ridgeline, as the wind is changing direction as I write. Antandrus (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the fire and I hope you are clear of danger. Is this map File:SantaBarbaraWildfire.png adapted from the BBC News] all right, or should it be adapted some how. There does not seem to be another map online of the extent of the blaze.

SriMesh | talk 05:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate it! Actually, let me explain the problem with the map. The BBC map shows the yellow and red polygons ending at the dirt road at the top of the Santa Ynez Mountains. The northern boundary of Santa Barbara County coincidentally has a profile while resembles that of the road, which is nowhere near the northern boundary of the county -- that's 50 miles away from here. So the fire and evacuation areas, on the map you and Arkyan made, are about an order of magnitude too large -- they cover a vast swath of the county, maybe a thousand square miles -- rather than the tiny portion they should. See the tiny red blob near the bottom? That's the city of Santa Barbara. The fire and evacuation area covers only a small part of *that* blob, along with a bit to the north of it. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd draw it myself if I had GIS tools on my laptop ... but that would have to wait until Monday. Antandrus (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see this map I made for the San Rafael Wilderness:

See the label "Santa Barbara" in the lower right, above the city? The northern extremity of the fire and evacaution areas extend roughly from the last "a" in "Santa" to the last "a" in "Barbara". You can see the mountain crest in the hillshade; as of this writing the fire has not crossed over the crest, and the BBC map stops at the crest. Antandrus (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you! I understand. I used adobe photoshop and deleted the other image on commons. This is the new one...from which I used your image and tried to overlay the area onto it. It is wider than the BBC map for the evacuation area, but the same height. File:Santa-Barbara-Wildfire.png It all sounds very frightening from the news reports, do take care.SriMesh | talk 05:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, and it appears accurate! Thank you! Never occurred to me to put it on an existing map ... :) Antandrus (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean by the HUGE difference. Thanks for helping, I added an annotated image to the article. I don't have mapping tools loaded yet myself, but I should already, as they do come in handy.SriMesh | talk 17:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jesusita Fire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 11:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll field this one.

Lede:

Resolved The lede currently contains information not appearing in the main body of the article. I would move this information into the main body and then re-write the lede in order to summarise the entirety of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Effects

Resolved "at the Multi-Activity Court at the UCSB Recreational" - "at the... at the..." is a little repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved Red Cross needs a link; maybe also "The Red Cross"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation:

Resolved Hot work has been linked on its second appearance rather than its first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved "each sentences" should be "each sentenced". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved "A year later in July 2011" - maybe a comma after "A year later"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Popular Culture

Resolved Citation needed. If none can be provided, this sentence should be scrapped. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: I think I have addressed all your points. Any additional thoughts? Thanks so much! -- Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zackmann08; just a few more issues, largely those which have arisen because of changed to the lede:

Resolved We mention the time that the fire started in the lede but not in the "Events" section. I'd suggest that this information belongs in the latter but is not important enough for the former. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved The lede mentions when the fire started but not when it was stopped. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved " fire.[5]The" - space bar needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved It would be good to archive the citations lest they eventually succumb to link rot, although that is not a prerequisite for passing at GAN. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: So I'm sitting here wondering when you are going to finish the review... Then I come look at the page and realize that for some idiotic reason I wasn't watching the page. Thanks so much! All the issues mentioned have been addressed. :-) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to pass this now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]