Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wildfire/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted by Karanacs 21:44, 28 July 2009 [1].

Wildfire

[edit]
Nominator(s): MrBell (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because of its importance as a global topic. MrBell (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - stunning imagery Fasach Nua (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment agree with Fasach Nua, if it was only a question of images, this article would deserve promotion without further ado!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another comment Where does the definition in the first sentence of the article come from? I don't see it in ref 2.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both Ref 2, slide 35 and Ref 1, page 4 have the definition. Wildland is just a US term for the wilderness/outdoors. MrBell (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sitting here thinking about it, the definition in the ref is kinda odd, because in the US, wildland fire includes wildfire, wildland fire use, and prescribed fire. Basically, a wildfire is any uncontrolled fire of the wildland fire type. And since wildland fires occur in the wildland (aka wilderness), then a wildfire is any uncontrolled fire in the wilderness. MrBell (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The images are so good that there is a danger that people will look at these and not read the article. I found myself doing this. I will read it; meantime, I couldn't understand the caption under the tryptich ("Forest development in the Bitterroot National Forest...") How exactly does one interpret these pictures from this caption, and why is it in quotes? Brianboulton (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? I hesitated rewording the direct quote from the text, but you were right, it was difficult to interpret. MrBell (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, would the picture fit better after the discussion of fuel build-up in the suppression section? MrBell (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Makes sure that the ISO-style dates in the citations are formatted correctly: I've seen several that are YYYY-M-D, M-D-YYYY, etc., instead of YYYY-MM-DD. Scripts or bots might not notice them all—you may need to go through by hand (ugh), and I'd rather not, at least yet (sorry). I agree that there's great images here.--an odd name 08:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC) done[reply]

  • Comments -
  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. done
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. I noted NIFC, NWCG, USDA, etc. done
  • Newspaper titles should be in italics, and the articles should be in quotations marks. done
  • In your notes, titles of books should be italicised, such as "Are Big Fires Inevitable, 14" where the title should be in italics, to match the form given in the references. done
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done At least I think I fixed them all. Let me know if there are others I missed. MrBell (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Please don't use templates such as {{done-t}}; they slow down loading time of the FAC page. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I was aware that the use of the image templates {{done}} and {{notdone}} was discouraged in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates ("Supporting and opposing"); however, I was under the impression that the use of the non-image templates {{done-t}} and {{notdone}} was encouraged, per Wikipedia:Peer review "How to respond to a request." Is this not true, and should their use be discouraged on the peer review page as well? MrBell (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though those are "non-image", they are still templates, and they can still cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about peer review, as I don't follow what goes on there much. I just know that SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) doesn't like them on FAC because of template limits and FAC's load time. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good job overall, great images. But broadly speaking, there are large parts where US-specific situations are described as if they were broad generalisations. Specifically:

Lead
  • General comment - the lead reads more like an introduction and less like a summary of this article.
Better?
  • I don't think the first sentence requires three separate refs to support an uncontroversial statement of what a wildfire is. Not a fan of refs in the lead (since it's a summary of the article, anything in the lead should be supported by refs in the body of the article), but that's neither here nor there.
Better with only two?
Yes and no. All three are very similar - they appear to be standard US government definitions, and they're linked to fire management laws. But wildfire has a meaning in English that's fuzzier than this one, I suspect. Unfortunately, most people who write about wildfire seem to assume it's a common English word that doesn't need to be defined. One thing though - if you're using US government definitions, I would recommend that you stick a bit closer to them, and use "wildland" rather than "wilderness"; it's more accurate "wilderness" has an element of "pristine", while "wildland" is merely uncultivated land.
How about now?
  • sentence 2: Greek fire really doesn't deserve more than a hatnote here, but if it's mentioned at all it should be further down in the lead. It's not central to the understanding of the article, it doesn't deserve second billing.
  • sentence 3: "bushfire" (in Australasia) - bush fire has much wider usage than just Australasia (see here, for example); phrasing it like that suggests that it's a local usage, which creates a misleading impression.
  • para 2, sentence 1: e.g., as a Latin abbrev, should be italicised
  • para 2, sentence 1: "peat, shrub, trees" goes from a collective noun ("peat") to a singular noun ('shrub") to a plural noun ("trees")
  • para 2, sent. 2: "or an action of man" - non-gender-specific language is preferable, as it something other than passive voice.
  • para 2, sent. 3: "nine out of ten" - is the source speaking globally, or only about the US?
  • para 2, sent. 4: there's a shift in tense in this sentence: "are common" to "occurring"
  • para 3, sent.1: "Along with the direct damage" - damage hasn't been mentioned yet, so you can't talk about "along with...damage"
  • para 3, sent.1: "direct damage...beneficial effects" - you can't really contrast "direct damage" with beneficial effects; if I see "direct" damage specified, I'd expect to see it contrasted with indirect damage. Alternately, you could contrast "damage" with "beneficial effects"
  • para 3, sent.1: "as many plant species are dependent on the effects of fire for growth and reproduction" - while strictly speaking this is true (every system has got to have at least a few pyrophytes), the idea that fires are important for plant regeneration isn't true of all systems. This should be re-phrased to make it clear that this observation is a (broad) local, rather than a global generalisation.
  • para 3, sent. 2: "too much wildfire may cause other negative ecological effects" - "too much" isn't an appropriate term for wildfire. "Too many"/"too frequent" (too short a return time) or "too large" (in areal extent), but not "too much"
  • para 3 in general is too North-American-specific; the following can't really be generalised outside of the US or, at best, the developed world:
    • "The strategies ... have varied over the years"
    • "now incorporate techniques that permit and even encourage fires in some regions"
    • "Wildfires generally do not involve property"
    • "with extensive urbanization of wilderness"
I've made some changes. I agree that the above statements may not apply to countries that don't have the resources to fight fires. However, I have yet to find anything discussing their actions one way or the other. What do you suggest?
  • I realise the source is quoted correctly, but are there really such things as "arched power lines"? "Power line arcs" seems more likely to me. Maybe we can find a different source. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed; new ref and wikilinks added. Better?
Yes. that looks good. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Distinction from other fires
  • para 1, sent. 1: "peatlands" rather than peat, for consistency with grasslands. woodlands, scrubland...
  • para 2: the "defining characteristics" seem local rather than global. Ref [14] does not appear to support the assertion that "wildfires" are 100k+ acres, it simply calls them "large fires"; I couldn't find anything in my skim of ref [15] to support the assertion that speed was a distinguishing characteristic of wildfire. :Additional ref, page number added
I still don't see it.

Some of the defining characteristics of wildfires are the large area of burned land, from hundreds of acres

is supported by ref [2], the "definition of map terms". It only defines a wildfire as "Any nonstructure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland"; it says nothing about size. The previous term, "Large Incident", is defined as "A wildfire of 100 acres or more occurring in timber, or a wildfire of 300 acres or more occurring in grass/sage". I don't see this as supporting the idea that wildfires can be defined as fires that burn "hundreds of acres". The second ref supports the assertion that wildfires can be much larger, but it doesn't support the idea that they are by definition large fires. It simply lists "Large Fires (100,000+ fires)". The idea that wildfires can be large isn't the same as the idea that wildfires are, by definition, large. The same issue with the speed of spread - the Otways fire speaks of one that spreads quickly, but doesn't appear to say that especially rapid spread is a characteristic of wildfires.
These two sites[2][3] suggest that, at least in the US, wildfires could mean just a few acres (USFS site, average of 31 acres ~ 0.12 km2). Should the "definition" of hundreds of acres be removed altogether, or can the term "features" be used instead and just point out certain "general descriptions" of wildfires?
Is the additional ref after "continuous fuels, thick vegetation and continuous overhead tree canopies" sufficient to claim wildfires have rapid spread?
  • para 2, sentence 3: you should provide some context for the "Mann Gulch fire" - where is Mann Gulch, at least identify the country it's in.
  • para 2, sentence 3: after using imperial units earlier in the para (acres) the article switches to SI (°C)
Question: If a reference uses either units, should I convert it to one standard unit, or would that interfere with verifiability?
Use one standard. That's fine. Conversion is a simple mathematical operation. Guettarda (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Physical properties
  • para 2, sentence 1: "required to evaporate the contained water" - "the contained water" isn't really normal English usage.
  • para 2, sentence 5, 6: these sentences are grammatically inconsistent
I've made some changes, but I'm not sure what you meant; could you elaborate further?
That's fine
  • para 3, sent. 1: In the previous section, you clocked the fires at 11 km/6.8 mph, while here a speed of 10.8km/7mph is used, based on the same source. While part of the problem is inconsistent specification of the number of significant figures in {{convert}}, there's also the problem of inconsistent rounding. These need to be fixed.
Fuel type
  • Photo captions aren't specific enough - "Utah" and "Northern Cascades" - should specify country
  • para 2 ("Ground"), sent. 2: "which was a result" (or something such) rather than simply "a result"
  • para 3 ("Crawling or surface") - this is unreferenced
  • para 4 ("Crown, canopy, or aerial") - six references to support an uncontroversial statement is a little excessive
Those references are all the sources that contributed to the section. Should they stay there or where they are now?
  • The slow-moving wildfires that are causing major changes in the Amazon need to be mentioned here, as should the synergism between logging, ranching and small-holder cultivation in the advancing frontier in the Amazon.
Mentioned in the ecology section; see next note...
  • Climate change is mentioned in the next section (the ecology section) but would probably fit better in this section.
I'm not sure I understand. I was under the impression that climate change is an ecological focus. Could you elaborate?
Ecology
  • para 2, sent. 1 (and continuing) - these statements about fire-dependence and fire-suppression are specific to the US (and perhaps a few other areas); they should not be presented as broad generalisations
Moved to the Plant adaptations section. It is appropriate there?
Plant adaptations
  • para 1, sent. 1 - "wilderness" in unnecessary here, since the operation concept here is "ecosystem", not "wilderness"
  • Many of the "see [xxx]" are capitalised (like "pioneer species", "serotiny") - these are not proper nouns and should not be capitalised mid-sentence
What about those in the {{see also}} templates, should those be lower case as well?
Those are fine, IMO.
Prevention
  • para 1, sent. 3: "Current policies often..." - again, which policies, where? (This sounds US-specific)
  • para 3, again, seems overly tied to the specific case in the US, but is written as if it's a broad generalisation
Detection
  • Again, it sounds like the US situation is being generalised too broadly.
Should I add statements and citations that name countries in particular? (see [4], [5], [6]) MrBell (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added some further comments in blue; more later. Guettarda (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Is the text I added appropriate? MrBell (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding it. I tweaked it a bit to try to improve it. Hey, that's the Ionian Sea, not the Aegean! Eubulides (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What should a history section or subsection include? Should it be combined with the ecology section, or perhaps move the Fossil record info to the history section? MrBell (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there's now a History section in progress. Suggestion: add a summary of the historical record (which basically begins where Fossil record leaves off). For example, how about when the ancients set wildfires deliberately, as part of hunting or raising crops or fighting wars? How about wildfires in mediaeval Europe or ancient China or 19th century America? that sort of thing. (I'm no expert, but surely there are sources about this.) Eubulides (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some detail; is it suitable?
Deliberate fires such as this are already covered in Causes through a link to Slash and Burn. I'm not convinced that it needs to be duplicated in History, but a {seealso} link and a short summary could provide a useful addition to the History section.Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine now. Brandt 12:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I reviewed this article sometime ago and having read a few papers since then I think that there is another 'point' that could be added to Ecology. A Wildfire in Heather in Fylingdales Moor, in 2003, in the UK, stripped the moor of peat back to bare bones and exposed prehistoric archaelogy, which was good for the archaeologists in the short term. One of the problems (not mentioned in this article) was continuing severe wind errosion which could have had serious consequences, especially with rain and frost errosion compounding the problem. The decision was made to manually 'seed' the affected area with grass and heather seads to stabilise the surface and to allow the heather to regrow. I have a reference for this. On a non-wildfire topic, Iceland has also experimented with manually 'seeding' areas of desert affected by volcanic debris to minimise losses from wind errosion (I don't have a reference for this).Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can add that info if you'd like (if you're too busy). Could you direct me to the ref regarding the peat burn/heather reseeding?
Nice ref, thanks for adding it.
  • Support. I reviewed this article at WP:GAN back in March 2009 and was impressed by it's quality, which appeared to me to be a Good WP:GAN. It has been further improved by the nominator since I reviewed it; particularly as a result of this WP:FAC. Having seen several recent articles progress from GA-level through to FA-level, I am very happy to support this one at WP:FAC.Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for the reminder. MrBell (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: See my comments here. --Moni3 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wildfire/archive1&oldid=1210511059"