Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Yellowstone fires of 1988/archive1

HF

The figure of 793,880 acres burned should be in the body somewhere
Done [1]
"In the eastern United States, with its significant rainfall, wildfires are relatively small and have rarely posed a great risk to life and property. As white settlements moved further west into drier areas, the first large-scale fires were encountered. Range fires on the Great Plains and forest fires in the Rocky Mountains were far larger and more destructive than what had ever been seen in the east." - not in source as it currently stands
Aded a reference [2]
"The Santiago Canyon Fire of 1889 in California and especially the Great Fire of 1910 in Montana and Idaho contributed to the philosophy that fire was a danger that needed to be suppressed" - source doesn't mention the Santiago Canyon Fire
Added a reference about Santiago fire that links it to part of the conversation regaring wildfire suppression [3]
" In Yellowstone, human-caused fires average between 6 and 10 annually, while 35 wildfires are ignited by lightning" - according to the source n an average year, Yellowstone has approximately 25 fires. Around 80% are caused by lightning., so these figures are either outdated or incorrect
This has been adjusted now and the source material is from his year [4]
"Between 1972 and 1987, a total of 235 prescribed natural fires burned a relatively small 33,759 acres (137 km2) under the directives of the new policy" - not finding this in the source?
Repositioned to correct source [5]
"The Snake River Complex of fires burned more than 140,000 acres (567 km2) before they were extinguished by wet weather in the fall" - not in source
Amended details and added ref [6]
"and consequently, more than 6,000 U.S. Military personnel assisted in the firefighting efforts nationwide, with more than 600 assigned to Yellowstone" - but p. 26 of the source says A total of more than 25,000 firefighters participated, including 11,700 military personnel and p. 24 says But more military personnel continued to arrive in Yellowstone - the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, and the Wyoming National Guard - their numbers cresting on September 17 at 4,146 in uniform.
Believe this has been amended now with better info [7]
" Bulldozers are rarely used on fires in U.S. National Parks" - not seeing where the source says this outright, but it does call the use of bulldozers a "last ditch resort" although that isn't the same thing as being rarely used
Updated information and added a ref [8]
"This might be a temporary event as conifers continue to grow and eventually crowd out other tree species." - source is over 20 years old, updated needed
Updated some info here [9]
"However, moose populations, unlike other ungulates, have not rebounded in subsequent years" - Source does state Of Yellowstone’s seven native ungulate species, only the moose experienced a population decline that appeared after 1988., but does that really support that moose population had a long-term dip? The way I read that sentence, it is only making the statement that moose population declined at one point after 1988
This has been adjusted with a new reference and added another reference to qualify. [10]
"Firefighters created 655 miles " - can't access the source cited here, but the Franke source says 665. If possible, the other source should be double-checked to make sure this isn't a typo
Changed to correct figure of 665 and changed ref--MONGO (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" and relatively inexpensive to replace" - this comment isn't in the source
This was removed and the section was reworeded for accuracy. [11]
The Franke source in particular discusses how many structures were damaged, I would say this is just as relevant as the destroyed buildings. For instance, "Of the 38 backcountry patrol cabins used by park rangers and park staff, the only one lost to the fires was at Sportsman Lak" is stated in the article, but what isn't stated is that according to Franke the others had varying degrees of damage from water or the fire shelters that had been nailed on
This has been amended [12]
" Fire plans were updated again in 2014 and have continuous review and updates as new science comes to light" - according to the source, the most recent thing is "Wildland Fire Strategic Plan - 2020-2024", surely this should be mentioned
Have updated this [13]
"As of 2002, fuel is reduced within 400 feet (120 m) of structures and other high-priority locations" - as noted above in the article, the NPS has changed fire management policies at least once since then, so this should either be updated with a more recent source or removed as its not clear that this is actually still current park policy
Found a 2019 series of directives that update this material [14]

Hog Farm _Talk 03:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost done...need a few more days yet.--MONGO (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm it appears the items you have mentioned have finally been addressed.--MONGO (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like @Penitentes and Ovinus: had some comments as well; so I'll turn this over to them. Hog Farm _Talk 13:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ovinus

Will complete spot checks tonight to gauge the state of things, and I'm eventually going to go through every citation to check for accuracy, since there aren't terribly many of them. Ovinus (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1]: Source says 235, article says 250. Are we rounding here for a reason? Also, unable to find anything about "120 helicopters" in the source.
[3]: Footnote, although it deserves a ref as well
[7]: Can't find anything about "focusing on visitor areas". It says most of the affected area was wilderness, but nothing about concentration of the effort. What if the fires were just by chance not near visitor areas?

I'm a bit worried at this point, although I may be missing something from the sources. In any case I will probably add {{rp}} throughout, or preferably {{sfn}} (I'm not a fan of {{rp}}), because it's annoying for verifiability to hunt through long sources. Per WP:CITEVAR I need consensus to shift to sfn, though. @SandyGeorgia, Hog Farm, MONGO, and Nikkimaria: is that okay? If not I'll use rp. Ovinus (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't speak for the primary page author (MONGO), but my personal preference would be sfns for the multi-page sources. I've found them to be helpful in the past to ensure that there aren't reference formatting issues. Either way, we need some sort of way to indicate what page numbers the information cited to the longer sources comes from, for verifiability purposes. Hog Farm _Talk 17:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[8]: Nothing about "significant rainfall"
[9]: Fine
[10]: Fine
[13]: Fine
[14]: Fine, although "middle of the 20th century" is rather vague when the mentioned date is 1930.
[20]: Fine
[21]: Leopold is not mentioned by name in the source. Also, a better source would be ideal.
This is a National park Service web page. If you look at the ref ancd click the HOME tab it clearly states this is the Leopold Report from 1963.--MONGO (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[26]: Good
[28]:
[30]: Good
[33]: Does not contain anything about a cigarette starting a fire
Have added a ref that provides this detail "The North Fork Fire was started by the cigarette of a non-commercial woodcutter in the Targhee National Forest, July 22."[15]--MONGO (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[37]: Needs page number

Pausing here, as I'm definitely going to need to go through each citation. I will try to verify each and will replace with sfn as I go. Ovinus (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to do page cites if someone can start one or two so I can see the formatting. This wont happen on my end of about a week as I am on a business trip in middle of nowhere with limited access.--MONGO (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Hopefully I'll be done by then. Ovinus (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. References will be relative to this permalink. Ovinus (alt) (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1]:
[2]: Source does not say "1000 structures", only "67 structures"?
[3]: Footnote, good
[4]: Page numbers needed. Will work on it
[5]:

Penitentes

'allo. I've mostly been getting familiar with the article subject and doing mild-medium formatting changes so far. Starting to also investigate the references. While I'm reviewing, I also want to give three cheers to @MONGO - regardless of the review it's a very thoughtful and elegantly written article. Amazing to hear that you had first-hand experience, too.

...protection of lives and property continue to take precedence in all firefighting efforts.^[60] ← This reference checks out. I added the page number (3) and a pre-emptive archive link in case new standards supplant the existing ref.
...but one firefighter and an aircraft pilot died in separate incidents outside the park.^[18] ← This reference doesn't support the sentence it's attached to, but the reference after it (Mary A. Frank, [36]) does, on page 25. I haven't changed anything here yet but once I see how {{sfn}} works/is formatted in practice, I'll return to it!
More TK

Penitentes (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]