Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blackwater fire of 1937/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Blackwater fire of 1937 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): MONGO 03:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly new article that has had a DYK entry and a just recently completed a comprehensive Peer Review here. This forest fire was small but deadly, resulting in one of the worst losses of firefighters in U.S. history. I have searched for all the information I could find to make it as comprehensive as possible and I'm looking for community feedback to bring the article to featured level. Thanks! MONGO 03:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Parutakupiu
[edit]August 18 (lead) vs. August 21 (infobox)?- Was debating this since the fire started on the 18th but the fatalities were on the 21st...but changed to 18th...MONGO
- Clearly, the date should be that of the fire start. A possible end date could be August 24–31 since it's believed that the fire was suppressed completely somewhere in that week, no? Parutakupiu (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add United States after Cody, Wyoming. Do the same in the infobox (replacing "U.S.")- Done...MONGO
I don't like the coordinates being show at the top of the page and simultaneously in the infobox. I'd leave it only in the infobox, since there it is clearly contextualized as the site where the fire occurred.- Done...MONGO
6 percent → six percent- MOSNUM...Percentages are usually written with figures..see [2]...MONGO
- You're right, I didn't check that. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... with one result being the development..." → "... one of them being the development..."- Good idea...adopted...MONGO
"... were developed in 1957for firefighters to use when combating fires." It's an expected use for a standard firefighting guide.- I was trying to make it clear that the handbook was for use in the field...I'll try and reword this. The guidelines are actually on a placard that was wallet sized so they are quickly referenced on the job. Give me a day or so to figure out the best way to phrase this.
- Have rephrased this and added a comment to make this clearer...MONGO
(Note: take this merely as a suggestion) In terms of section structure, I think you could group them in three major sections: the first containing "Geography" and "Early 20th-century firefighting" (under a name which I can't come up with yet; don't know if "Background" would be appropriate...), the second comprising all the events from the beginning to the end of the fire ("Firefighter deployment", "Firefighters trapped by shift in firelines" and "Recovery") and the third would remain as the "Aftermath" section."The firestorm deathswereoccurred on the west slopes of Clayton Mountain."- Done...MONGO
"... which also had dead limbswhichextendeding to the ground and providing a fuel ladder..."- Done...MONGO
There is an instance of "wildfire suppression" before the one that is actually linked.- Done...nice catch...MONGO
"embers" should link to Ember, not Embers.- Done...MONGO
Actually, "Recovery" as section title sounds a bit vague and unclear. It needs a title that encompasses not only the body recovery but also the fire supression.- As part of your suggestion to restructure the sections, I'll look this over the next couple days...MONGO
"... a limited number of firefighters at thefiresite until August 31." – The fire had been suppressed at this point, right?- The fire was controlled and contained but was still smoldering for a week after the fatalities...but added site as that makes it less ambiguous...MONGO
"All those that died..." – The deceased firefighters?- I reworded the sentences to make this clearer...MONGO
Remove the {{clear}} template as it creates too much blank space. If it's because the Clayton Gulch image doesn't cross into the next section, you can move the memorial image to the left, before the second paragraph.- Done...the section was expand since that template was placed there. Thanks...MONGO
"... the fire wasn't contained enough..." – was not- Automated Peer Review mentioned this and until you found it I couldn't see it. I read through the article several times and missed it each time. Now corrected...MONGO
- A simple browser search sufficed. :) Parutakupiu (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second image needs a period at the end of the caption (full sentence).- Done...good catch...MONGO
— Parutakupiu (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you have renamed the "Aftermath" section. While you could keep the new title, I think that you could recover "Aftermath" as the name of a top-level section that would nest the new "Fire investigation and results" but also another sub-section that includes the last paragraph on the memorials (maybe named "Memorials"?), which don't fit so well with the preceding content. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added new headings to better break up the article into sections...it looks more organized now but the headings may need words tweaked for clarity.....MONGO
- "Geographical setting and fauna" reads better than just a vague "Geography", but I would take out 'fauna' from it, since geography (at least, physical geography) tends to include that part.
- I don't think you need a separate sub-section to describe how the dry front changed the wind strength and direction, particularly when the heading is so long and reads as a full sentence, as "Dry front causes wind to change direction" does. Moreover, the pivotal firestorm that is fueled by those phenomena is only mentioned in the following sub-section. Hence, I think it would look better if you put this part back under "Firefighters trapped by firestorm".
- You nested "Rescue and body recovery" under "Aftermath" but I think it should belong in the previous section.
- — Parutakupiu (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did all the wise suggestions on headings you suggested here except the last one...still vacillating on it....MONGO
- My rationale is that the rescue attempt was done while the fire was still active (although the firestorm had already passed). That's why I wouldn't put that section under "Aftermath". Parutakupiu (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That works for me...consider it done....MONGO
- My rationale is that the rescue attempt was done while the fire was still active (although the firestorm had already passed). That's why I wouldn't put that section under "Aftermath". Parutakupiu (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After you addressed Quadell's very pertinent comments, I made another read and made some edits myself, but the article was already in shape for promotion. One last and tiny suggestion is to move the Clayton Gulch image a bit up (maybe at the start of the "Firefighters trapped by firestorm" section) so it's not packed into the memorial image. Good work. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for all the time you've spent helping with some copyediting and for reviewing this FAC. I moved the Clayton Gulch image up one section and shifted the last image to left margin....seems to balance the article well that way.--MONGO 18:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Quadell
[edit]Resolved issues
|
---|
|
- The sourcing is now complete and reliable. Well done. In addition, the prose is very good and the lede is excellent. I've reread the entire article and looked through the sourcing, and can find no omissions or unclear bits.
- In "Aftermath", you mention changes to firefighting procedures in 1957 and 1987. Do you think it's worth mentioning that the 10 AM rule was effectively done away with in 1977? (That's according to your "EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT POLICY" link.) It's not strictly speaking a part of this fire's aftermath, but the 10 AM rule was pretty disastrous here. This is not a requirement, but just a possibility to consider.
- That is an excellent point that I will notate in the article...I didn't want to stray too far off the subject of the fire itself aside from setting up the issues of what it was like to combat fires back then but this issue does need to be addressed.....MONGO
Support. This article is worthy of being featured. – Quadell (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your exceptionally detailed review.--MONGO 19:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now....Comments from PSky
- Images this is my only concern here. All the images have the same issue: File:Blackwater fire 1.jpg, File:Blackwater firefighters 1937.jpg, File:Blackwater fire 2.jpg, File:Clayton Gluch 1937.jpg, File:Blackwater fire memorial.jpg. They each have two issues: the licenses should be "PD-USGov-USDA-FS", not USDA because it's more specific and they all say they are Forest Service and they are all dated 2013, Upload dates I guess, but Template:Information says it should be the original creation date not some other date. PumpkinSky talk 00:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added dates as best I could...two are only the year. The dedication ceremony was on the second anniversary of the deaths. Added the license you pointed out...thank you!--MONGO 23:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added my support PumpkinSky talk 14:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for contributing to the discussion.--MONGO 15:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.