Talk:Rim Fire

Previously untitled thread-Start and title

I started this stub since the event seems to meet notabillty criteria for events per WP:GEOSCOPE and coverage. --DarTar (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Good start, but I moved the page to Rim Fire based on the fire's official name and the fact that the fire neither started in Yosemite nor is it primarily burning in Yosemite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Make sense, thanks. DarTar (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think the date is needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Whether or not the year is included (which is pretty common for articles on natural disasters), we need a distinctive title to avoid disambiguation issues.--DarTar (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
        • There seems to be no issue with disambiguation. Simple have the redirect deleted (as you can move this page until that page is gone) which will need an admin to accomplish and move this into the simple common name title of Rim Fire. Right now the date causes issues for search terms. Per the article Angora Fire I propose this article follow a similar naming convention without dating.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I have no objection to taking out the date. I just didn't want to wait for the hassle and runaround of finding an admin to nuke the redirect. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
            • I just asked the editor that created the redirect if he would request deletion as author so the article could be moved. Lets see if that will be enough.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
              •  Done --DarTar (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
                • Like --Mark Miller (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rim Fire name

Does anyone know what the name of "Rim" refers to? Tandrum (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

See this revision.--DarTar (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Potential threat

Believe it or not, this fire could take out Yellowstone National Park! That's how big it is! --Josh M (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Forgot to use sig... Sorry! --Josh M (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I assume you meant Yosemite? The fire is big, and it is burning in remote portions of Yosemite National Park, but it is not any threat to Yosemite Valley, the main tourist area, which remains open. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• No, my mom told me that it could destroy Yellowstone it's so big! I know Yosemite is already being burned! --Josh M (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Tell your mom that Yellowstone is 1,000 miles away. The fire is big, but it's not that big! ;-D Maybe she was talking about three smaller fires that are burning near Yellowstone? link --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

NASA Earth Observatory article

Here's a good resource for the article. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=81971 Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 01:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"Unhealthy" vs. "unhealthful"

Twice now, people have changed "unhealthful" to "unhealthy" in the sentence "Smoke from the fire caused unhealthful air conditions in Reno, Nevada and the Lake Tahoe area". They have tagged "unhealthful" as a "spelling error". Actually the words do have different meanings. "Unhealthful" means "not conducive to good health; unwholesome."[1] "Unhealthy" mostly means being in poor health, although a secondary meaning is the same as "unhealthful" above.[2] Although "unhealthy" can be used in this sense of meaning "bad for you", I think we should use the more precise and correct word.[3] --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Rim Fire finally contained; no longer a threat.

I checked the InciWeb update regarding the Rim Fire and found that the fire has reached 100% containment on Thursday, 24 October 2013 at 4 PM PDT.

I had updated the Wikipedia article on the Rim Fire and making a final revision to the article, including how many acres the fire burned and the cost to fight the fire. If anyone has any additional information regarding the Rim Fire containment, you're welcome to revise it more. 184.9.154.19 (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Man, this containment was a long time coming! --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It sure was! And now the United States. Forest Service is conducting investigation of whoever started a illegal campfire that sparked the Rim Fire. And whoever did it will find themselves in serious trouble!

On a side note, thank you for correcting some of the errors in the Wikipedia article. 74.42.181.214 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Is the date of the fire being fully extinguished (6 September) if the fully contained date is in October? Looking at the Forest service website, the 6 Sept date is simply the last date of entry on their website. CollinsEddy (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw an NPS message not too long ago talking saying there still are some hot spots due to the dry winter. Eeekster (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath

Added a section on the Rim Fire aftermath, since there are ongoing news and controversies about the burn area and its management. I've added a section on the controversy over the closure of the area, in particular the closure to morel mushroom hunters. I plan on expanding the section on the salvage logging controversy, since the discussion in the article so far represents minimal (and, I'd add, quite unbalanced) coverage of what was in fact, a much larger issue. So far, the article does not even mention Representative Tom McClintock's bill to open up the area to extensive salvage logging. Some sources I plan on using, so I can find them again: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].

Also, I've left the article with bare URL's so far, but will complete the references soon. Peter G Werner (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Contained and extinguished

The CalFire link didn't say a date that the fire was extinguished, and the InciWeb link says it was contained in October. The fire can't be extinguished before it's contained - by definition, you have to contain it (complete a line around the entire fire) before you put it out. So I'm not sure where the dates are coming from, but unless we have some reliable sources that say otherwise, I'm going with the October containment date. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Per Inciweb, the Rim Fire was not fully contained until October 24, 2013. This is confirmed by external reliable sources — I don't know why the CAL FIRE information is wrong, but it's wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

hunter charged and identified

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-hunter-charged-massive-rim-fire-20140808-story.html

Keith Matthew Emerald of the Sierra foothills town of Columbia, Calif., was charged with two felonies: setting timber afire and lying to a government agency, the U.S. Attorney's Office announced Thursday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.144.118 (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I have added the information to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Rim Fire Recovery Project

A new article has been created called Rim Fire Recovery Project. I don't believe it is separately notable but should be a part of this article Rim Fire. The significant information and references have already been merged into this article. After any additional merging is done, I propose that the Recovery Project article become a redirect to this article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree. It doesn't really stand on its own anyway, but it could be a useful part of the other article. ubiquity (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Merge - The recovery project is not that unique, despite the historic size of this fire. Also, most large fires have their own recovery projects. The information from that article could probably be merged into the Rim Fire article without reducing the coverage on the subject, so there's no real need for a separate "Rim Fire Recovery Project" article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I carried out the merge today. --MelanieN (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Biological Consequences

I started adding information about biological consequences of the Rim Fire from ongoing scientific monitoring.DerekELee (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

I am giving this article a GA Review. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 06:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

COMMENT. This Review is on hold until the following copyvios are cleared up. See "Note" further down-thread.
Please refer to: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Rim+Fire&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0. Content was lifted straight from the source and placed into the WP article.
For instance,

• WP article: The fire started on August 17, 2013 at 3:25pm in the Stanislaus National Forest, east of Groveland, when a hunter lost control of an illegal campfire.
• Facebook posts (Official fire department source): The fire started on August 17, 2013 at 3:25 pm in the Stanislaus National Forest, east of Groveland, when a hunter lost control of an illegal campfire.
• WP article: The blaze was difficult to fight because of inaccessible terrain and erratic winds, forcing firefighters to be reactive instead of proactive.
• Source: The blaze was difficult to fight because of inaccessible terrain and erratic winds, forcing firefighters to be reactive instead of proactive.

And so on. No further work will be done on the Review until these issues are corrected. Shearonink (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Zackmann08: Please see above. Shearonink (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Shearonink: first, thank you for taking the time to review this! Much appreciated. Second, I'm pretty sure this actually is not plagiarism, at least not by "us". I think that this was copied FROM wikipedia, not the other way around. Here's why... The section that was flagged by Earwig is heavily sourced by 9 different sources none of which are Facebook (the matching copyvio). But most notably, the copyvio on Facebook was posted on November 22, 2016. This article has only had 2 edits since the end of September and neither of them added this material. Take a look and let me know if you concur. Thanks again! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: My mistake about the source being official, it is not. Per its website "Calfireupdates.com is a privately owned website that is not owned or operated by any state government agency." Point taken about who copied what, this FB account is basically a mirror-site. Moving on.

@Shearonink: word! Thanks for keeping me honest. When I first saw your comment I had the same thought and assumed it WAS plagiarized. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   References are problematic. For instance, the following URLs are dead: 22, 60, 34, 9, 44. Please check http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Rim_Fire for additional issues. For the dead URLs check to see if there is a web-archive/wayback machine URL that can be used. For the cites marked as "300"s, please adjust them (if possible) to the most correct/most recent URL.

   • On Hold. This review is on hold until the referencing issues (the 5 dead links, etc) are corrected

   • @Shearonink:  Done Good finds. Addressed. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

   • Good job, all the refs are now fixed. Good research on finding alternate links for those deadlinked sources.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   To any future "reviewers of this review" - please see struck COMMENT copyvio-discussion above - re:Facbook content mirroring WP. The matter is settled to my satisfaction.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Reading it through again to check for any possible readability/overly-detailed issues.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The images pass muster in every way I can think of. The high severity image is especially visually arresting.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This GA Review is on hold pending one last read-through to see if I missed any possible concerns (stylistic or otherwise).

   • I did find a sentence of concern.

"The fire advanced to within a mile of Hetch Hetchy by Monday, August 26, which was a concern to O'Shaughnessy Dam officials due to ash falling in the water.

So far as I can tell information as cited does not appear within the closest subsequent reference - please find a reliable source for this statement.

1. • This Review is on hold pending the fixing of this one last concern. Once it is dealt with, I will be able to complete my GA Review.

   • @Shearonink: issue addressed. Added a good source. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

   • I have passed the article to GA status. Congratulations to User:Zackmann08 and all the editors who got the article to this level. Shearonink (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

General article work

Hello! It's been quite some time since this article's GA review and I think it has aged a bit. I plan to work on it for a while and would welcome any help. Some things I want to do:

• Update the article with {{convert}} templates for acreages, distances, and other units
• Ensure all references have working URLs, and failing that, solid archives
• Add more images
• Flesh out the new 'Background' section with information on wildfire history in the area, the drought that was ongoing during the fire, etc.
• Better organize the section on 'Effects'
• Add a section dedicated to the investigation of the fire's cause and the prosecution/dismissal of charges against the hunter

That's enough to get started on, at least.

Penitentes (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)