Talk:Wolf Fire

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Penitentes (talk · contribs) 18:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 15:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'll review this article. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

General comments

All done with prose for now, exceptionally written as I'm sure you know. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Prose and content

• leading to a fourth consecutive year of drought in the region -> continuing a three year drought in the region ?

• Changed to marking its fourth year of below-normal precipitation - reading the source again, it confirms it was a four-year dry spell but not that it was officially a drought. This wording feels smoother, like your suggestion, and with a little more fidelity to the source.

• Vegetation moisture levels were very low and fire activity was consequently elevated -> Vegetation was very dry, so there were more fires than usual ?

• Changed to Vegetation dryness approached record levels, and firefighters remarked on the surprising vigor of fires even in the spring

• It became one of the earliest fire seasons in decades -> It was one...

• Done!

• which informed fire crews' understanding of the Wolf Fire's potential for growth are you talking generally about their understandings of fires or specifically the Wolf Fire here? If it's the latter it might be best to move the last clause out of the Background section.

• Specifically the Wolf Fire here. Good call - I moved this bit to the third paragraph of the Progression section.

• roughly 12 miles (19 km) this is partly a personal belief; I don't think anyone is thinking it's exactly 12 miles. If it's a round number, you don't have to include "roughly" or "approximately". Feel free to disagree.

• Good point, removed "roughly"

• bolstered by eyewitness accounts from a bicycling tour group this detail is unnecessary

• Removed

• though the calls failed for lack of cellular service in the area -> thought without cellular service in the area, their calls failed.

• Changed to but there was no cellular service in the area and their calls failed

• The closed portion of Highway 33 remained so -> This route remained closed (the highway -> Highway 33)

• Done

• and it was five percent contained -> and five percent was contained

• Changed to five percent of the perimeter was contained

• they could contain the fire in Chorro Grande Canyon -> to the Chorro...

• Done

• Winds out of both -> Winds from ?

• Done

• Firefighters retained a defensive footing stances ?

• Yeah, that does sound awkward. Changed to Firefighters maintained a defensive stance

• with 15 percent containment contained ? lot of question marks; I want to give you opportunities to pushback beyond the usual baseline

  Changed to with its perimeter 15 percent contained and added commas for better flow!

• , between the fire and the sanctuary redundant

• Removed

• the fire ran hard to the east Is this metaphorical or just the terminology? Apologies for ignorance.

• Terminology - in wildfire wildfires are often referred to as running ("ran up the slope" etc.) but you're right that this is not very encyclopedic or intuitive. Changed to the fire grew rapidly to the east

• but for the change in the weather -> if the weather hadn't changed

• Done

• ticked down less colloquial

• Changed to dwindled

• footprint -> range/coverage

• Changed to burned area

• and one was stung by a bee unless it was a really bad sting (bad allergy) I can't imagine why this should be mentioned. The way it's presented, it doesn't read as a bad sting, it appears like they were a wuss.

• Removed

• four of which were unoccupied ranch buildings,[2] and two of which were outbuildings for a vacation home bit repetitive with the "of which", can be made more concise

• Changed to four of them unoccupied ranch buildings and two of them outbuildings for a vacation home

• who, while not in distress, unnecessary detail

• Removed

• Large portions of the Los Padres National Forest closure order it doesn't appear like "large portions" it appears like all? Unless some remained, which are not mentioned again?

• The source itself is clear that it was only a partial re-opening and lists some areas (like the Sespe Trail and several campgrounds) as still closed. I looked for, and wasn't able to find, any sources describing when those remaining closures were lifted.

• more than five thousand years before the fire bit too literary.

• Removed

• and previously unknown Native sites could you expand for me what previously unknown Native sites is referring to?

• Changed to known archaeological sites as well as ones newly revealed by the fire; hopefully that's clearer!

• and professed in a report of their own to find the allegations—including those regarding the Wolf Fire—without merit bit strangely formal, make more clear

Changed to and wrote in a report of their own that the allegations—including those regarding the Wolf Fire—were without merit

• Gloss stand-replacing

• Changed to severe enough to kill most of the trees

Suggestions

• The cost of containing the fire came to $15 million -> Containing the fire cost $15 million

• Done

• expanded to 200 acres (81 ha) -> covered 200 acres (81 ha)

• And done!

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• [4] Y
• [5] Y
• [8] Y - Appears to be a mistype, the fire was 30 acres by 4pm, not 3pm.
• [12] Y
• [20] Y
• [23] Y
• [27] Y
• [31] Y

Other

• Images: all appropriately tagged Y
• Neutral Y
• No OR/COPYVIO Y - Earwig 11.5% based off common phrases
• Stable Y
• Broad/summary style Y

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Rollinginhisgrave, I believe I've gone through all of your (very helpful) comments so far! A bunch of good catches there with awkward turns of phrase. I also fixed the timestamp error with reference 8. Let me know if you find the changes acceptable and if you've got any more. Cheers!! — Penitentes (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

All looking good, closing with a pass. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2024 (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.