The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that at the time, the Fountain Fire was the third-most destructive wildfire in California's recorded history?
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
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
Fountain 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
The reference list is massive, but all the citations I could check did indeed check out. I ran it through Earwig's Copyvio detector; the only substantial passage of similarity was quoted and cited to the source, so no issue there.
Note in particular the section on 'Causes', which neatly handles an area that is necessarily speculative without devolving either into gossip or withholding material.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No edit wars: constructive changes are still taking place, but the article has been broadly stable since at least the end of December 2022.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
The images that exist are good, and excellent use has been made of US government media. Some more images of the actual fire might be helpful, if such exist in a useable form.
Overall: An excellent article, and a worthy GA.
Pass/Fail:
Did you know nomination
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Both hooks check out, and are interesting. The article was improved to GA four days ago, and has the correct inline citations. The article is neutral and I do not find copyright violations. The QPQ is done. Bruxton (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Penitentes, Onegreatjoke, and Bruxton: I'm not clearly seeing how the "third most destructive wildfire" claim is backed up by the sources in the article body, none of which seem to say it's in third place (even though the Newspapers.com clipping above does)...? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Hey! I might be misunderstanding, but I think the claim is sufficiently supported—in addition to the clipping (which is included as a reference for that particular sentence in the article), the Cal Fire archived list of most destructive wildfires lists the Fountain Fire as #4, with one of the three above it being a later 1999 fire. I moved those two references to be mid-sentence, directly after the 'then the third-most destructive claim', with the other Cal Fire reference supporting the 'no longer in the top 20' claim. If you think it's not clear enough that the fire was #3 in 1992 but not today, let me know! - Penitentes (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
b (citations to reliable sources): 
Both hooks check out, and are interesting. The article was improved to GA four days ago, and has the correct inline citations. The article is neutral and I do not find copyright violations. The QPQ is done. Bruxton (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)