Talk:California FAIR Plan

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.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 00:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ...that California FAIR Plan could have as much as $30 billion in total losses from the January 2025 Southern California wildfires with only $377 million available to pay out claims?

• Source: "Because of the fires that started last week, that linchpin may be about to break, with consequences that would reverberate throughout California’s economy. As of last Friday, the FAIR Plan had just $377 million available to pay claims, according to the office of Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California. It’s not yet known how much in claims the plan will face but the total insured losses from the fires so far has been estimated at as much as $30 billion. Because the fires are still burning, that number could grow. Unlike regular insurance companies, the FAIR Plan can’t refuse to cover homes just because they’re in vulnerable areas. As a result, as the risk of wildfires grows, homes deemed too dangerous by major insurers have been piling up on the FAIR Plan’s books. Between 2020 and 2024, the number of homes covered by the plan more than doubled, to almost half a million properties with a value that tripled to about half a trillion dollars."

NY Times

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Riko Dan
  • Comment: Alt hooks welcome.

Created by Thriley (talk) and KyaniteAl2SiO5 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 160 past nominations.

Thriley (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC).

• Earwig shows two sentences copied directly from california-business-lawyer-corporate-lawyer.com, which I don't think is a reliable source, given their interest on the legal side of this costly disaster. The hook is also misleading, as the FAIR plan article states As of January 17, 2025, the FAIR Plan estimated that it covered 22% of the structures affected by the Palisades Fire, with a potential exposure upwards of $4 billion, and 12% of the structures affected by the Eaton Fire, with a potential exposure of over $775 million - however this can be addressed easily by replacing the $30 billion figure with "nearly 5 billion" or some variant, and ideally "Southern California fires" with the Palisades and Eaton fires specifically. Other than that, the article is just outside of the nomination window (but I'll extend it a bit here). QPQ is done, everything else in the article looks sourced, neutral, and otherwise good enough for DYK, and the hook appears interesting if it could be rephrased - how would you feel about the hook

  ...that the California FAIR Plan could have nearly $5 billion dollars of exposure to damage from the Palisades and Eaton fires while only having $377 million on hand to pay claims?

  I do think this article could be improved to DYK standards relatively easily by swapping out the source (removing its claims in their entirety may take this below the minimum DYK prose length) and fixing the hook to be less misleading. Departure– (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Thriley: It's been over two weeks since I've reviewed this and no action has been taken. If nothing happens before three weeks (February 17) I'm going to close this. Departure– (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. The copyvio appears to be from the website copying Wikipedia. The ALT hook you suggested works well. Thriley (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright. I think I found that unreliable source from Earwig and mistook it from coming straight from the article. Anyway, the article was new enough at the time, QPQ done, sourced well enough and neutral. Good to go on the ALT. Departure– (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)