Template:Did you know nominations/Chinchaga fire

The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Chinchaga fire

(

)

... that the massive Chinchaga fire of 1950 in northern Canada produced a smoke cloud that was blamed on supernatural forces, aliens, and nuclear armageddon?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Verduzzo

Created by The Interior (talk). Self nom at 11:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Article neither new nor 5x expanded over the past five days. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Moved from userspace Dec. 28 The Interior (Talk) 12:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I will give this a full review. Chris857 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

~6700 characters, moved out of userspace a few days ago
cited inline
sources look reliable
AGF on offline sources
Interesting hook, verified, brief enough
I see no copyvio in available sources

Issues:

In "Background and cause", there are some sentences not followed by a ref

Suggestions:

"The fire was allowed to burn freely, a result of the lack of human settlements in the region and local forest management policy." I think this would be better as "... a result of local forest management policy and the lack of human settlements in the region." since I almost read it as "a lack ... of local forest management policy" Chris857 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"was human caused" -> "was caused by humans"; sounds a little better to me

"all reported affects" -> "all reported effects"; grammar

"during the blackout" -> "during the event"; maybe? it seems to odd to me to read about electricity being used during a "blackout". If you have a better option than event, go for it.

Chris857 (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Good points all, went with your changes. The Interior (Talk) 01:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"smoke event"? I dunno. The Interior (Talk) 01:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if this was moved out of userspace, the expanded size must be five-fold of the previous version. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a new article. There is no previous version. The Interior (Talk) 12:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Article was created on Dec 19, 2012. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The draft was started in my userspace on that date. See Eligbility rule 1.D: Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage or at articles for creation and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace. The Interior (Talk) 13:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The Interior is correct that this article qualifies per the rules. All the earlier points have been addressed, so this passes. Chris857 (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)