Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fountain Fire/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2024 [1].

Fountain Fire

edit
Nominator(s): Penitentes (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Fountain Fire, a large and destructive wildfire in rural Northern California in 1992. The fire itself largely took place over two dramatic days in late August, but its effects persisted in the region long afterward. It destroyed multiple small communities along the State Route 299 corridor and was only contained by the efforts of more than 4,400 firefighters, making it one of the most destructive and expensive wildfires in state history; as fires in the Golden State have gotten bigger and badder it no longer makes any top 10 lists but remains no slouch. The article was successfully nominated for GA in January 2023 and received a peer review in February 2024. This is my first FAC nomination.

Penitentes (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

edit

Reserving a spot for a review. —Kusma (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: what is "long-range spotting"? (Googling I get things about hunting telescopes).
    "Spotting" refers to wildfire behavior wherein embers and firebrands are lofted by wind or the fire's own convective smoke column and, landing in unburnt vegetation, ignite and thus spread the fire quickly and unpredictably. I've changed the lead to "...behavior such as long-range spot fires", wiki-linking to spot fire and crown fire next to it for good measure. — Penitentes (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: TIL {{rp}} has a quote option. I am not sure I like it, but my personal preference is not a FAC criterion.
    I'm not very attached to them, I think the relevant text is easy enough to find in those references. I've removed them. — Penitentes (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't really opposed to the quotes, just to the way they are presented, which actually violated MOS:NOHOVER. —Kusma (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, good to know. I've bookmarked this. I have one or two other wildfire GAs I need to alter for compliance. — Penitentes (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you say something here about what the vegetation / forests in Shasta County were like before the fire?
    Great thought. I've added a short paragraph to the "Background" section giving some general geographic context and describing the forest—I don't think it feels redundant to the information given in the "Post-fire landscape" section but please do tell me if you feel that way. — Penitentes (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem in my opinion. —Kusma (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • August 20: " Investigators found pine trees two–three feet (0.61–0.91 m) in diameter snapped in half.[15][19] Such vortices have been recorded ..." so was this snapping blamed on fire vortices?
    It was. I've reworded this paragraph to make the attribution clearer. — Penitentes (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A map of the local area helping the reader see what is where (a bit more zoomed in than the main map) would be great to understand this section better.
    Also a good idea. I'll try and whip something up in QGIS tonight if I have the time, or possibly this weekend. — Penitentes (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • August 21: again, I do not understand what "more long-range spotting" means here. The dab page spotting and wikt:spotting are both not helpful.
    I've reworded this sentence as "...growth was enabled by more long-range spotting fire, as ember attack started spot fires between...", hopefully describing the actual process a little better as well as wiki-linking to spotting fire (which goes to the same place as spot fire) and ember attack. — Penitentes (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • August 22: what is a "hand line"? (I apologise for my lack of fire and firefighting related vocabulary)
    Hand line refers to firebreaks dug/cut using hand tools instead of by bulldozers, as is also common. No need for an apology, I'm so immersed in the subject that it's very helpful to know what terms can and can't be gleaned by fresh readers. I've rephrased it in the article to "constructed firebreaks by hand" and added that wiki-link to firebreak. — Penitentes (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firefighting effort: is it worth giving more context on the $22 million by using {{inflation}} or similar?
    Done. — Penitentes (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am allergic to false precision, so would prefer |r=0. —Kusma (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. Fixed. I also added an inflation calculation to the total damages estimate in the "Damage" section. — Penitentes (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criticism and response: "it interviewed 24 different fire officials" here, "it" is "the report"; did the report really do interviews?
    Changed to "it relied on interviews with...". — Penitentes (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closures and evacuations: how long did the evacuation order last?
    I agree that this is necessary. It'll take a little longer to dig through the sources but I will try and do it this evening/this weekend, along with the map you mentioned above. — Penitentes (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I think this is largely done. It's difficult to pinpoint what communities were evacuated for which time periods, but I've added this text, which is supported by existing references. "Some residents of burned areas were able to access their properties on August 23 and 24. By August 25, Big Bend, Moose Camp, and Hillcrest were the only communities still under mandatory evacuation orders, and almost all evacuees were able to return by August 28." — Penitentes (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, found a Los Angeles Times source and was able to add this new sentence right before the two sentences above: "The majority of these evacuees were able to return to their homes on August 22, leaving 2,000–3,000 still displaced from Moose Camp, Montgomery Creek, Hillcrest, and Round Mountain." I think this now pretty well covers the coverage and duration of the evac orders to the extent the sourcing allows. — Penitentes (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvage logging: " 10 families belonging to the Pit River Tribe of Native Americans occupied Smith Camp " had occupied?
    Inserted. — Penitentes (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Herbicide application and replanting: link second-growth forest.
    Done. — Penitentes (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cause: this section comes a bit late for my taste. Perhaps before "Effects" might work just as well or better?
    You're totally right. Moved to before "Effects". — Penitentes (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is in excellent shape already. Some specialist terminology could perhaps be glossed/avoided, but overall I find very little to complain about. I am amazed that this is your first FAC. —Kusma (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind! I've responded to all of the comments above, and made changes pursuant to them (barring the new map and the evacuation duration). — Penitentes (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent changes. I am happy to hear you are working on an additional map and have one minor point above, but this is already good enough for me to support. —Kusma (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thrilled to hear it! I thought all your suggestions were really quite helpful. I'm very grateful for your time. — Penitentes (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I've left notes on a couple WikiProject talk pages inviting users to comment, but assuming those do not pan out I'll happily accept the archival (any feedback > no feedback) and spend some time reviewing GANs and FACs before I re-nominate this article. — Penitentes (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

edit

Hi Penitentes, good to see this article up at FAC. I was the reviewer at the peer review and found the article to be very well written. I can happily support this article for promotion to FA class. Also, I would appreciate if you could check out a PR I opened recently, linked here. Thanks in advance, and cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan, that's very kind! I was very happy to receive your feedback in my PR request—they were helpful suggestions all—and I'd be happy to lend some time to yours. — Penitentes (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments at the PR, @Penitentes. I would suggest you comment on at least 5-10 FACs which are open right now to get reviews for your own FAC. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source & image review

edit

Still on semi-holidays, but I'll tackle this item. File:1992 Fountain Fire Map 1.png and File:1992 Fountain Fire map zoomed.png need licences for the underlying map elements. Why is File:Fountain Fire burn scar.jpg in the 21 August section? File:Fountain Fire burn scar.jpg seems to have a different image at its source. Source-wise, newspapers don't need ISSNs. #92 and Bonnicksen, I think that should be "cite report" not "cite web". Otherwise, not much to say on the sources, they all seem adequately formatted and appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Working on map element licenses for those two images.
  • Moved File:Fountain Fire burn scar.jpg to the 'Salvage logging' section
  • The source image for File:Fountain Fire burn scar.jpg should be correct, the full image extent just doesn't show unless you click it on the source page. If there's a way I can clarify that, let me know!
  • Converted Bonnicksen to 'cite report'. If #92 is the FEMA link, there's no actual associated report, so it should be OK as is?
Thanks very much for the review. I will update when I've completed the map element item. — Penitentes (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Thanks for your patience! I've added licenses for all underlying data for both of the maps. If any concerns remain relating to the above points, let me know; if not, I will move on to addressing your spot-check comments below tomorrow. — Penitentes (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK on the images, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus, will you be doing spotchecks? Matarisvan (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 That source doesn't say that firefighters were occupied with wildfires elsewhere.
  • Removed the phrase ...and the rest of the western United States.... Rephrased the remainder to ...during the Fountain Fire's first day, four thousand firefighters were deployed on the destructive Old Gulch Fire in Calaveras County, which is supported by the text ("At least one team fighting the blaze had come from the Old Gulch fire in Calaveras County... About 3,650 firefighters were still assigned to that fire, down from a peak of 4,000 the day before..." — Penitentes (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 OK
  • 9 OK
  • 10 OK
  • 21 OK
  • 25 I don't see the memo? Or the details about Burney.
  • 28 Doesn't seem to discuss the Pit River thing or the position of Moose Camp.
  • Removed portion about the specific location of Moose Camp. Re: Pit River, [28] mentions the steepness of the terrain, the old-growth forest, and the other at-risk "resource values" in the second and third paragraphs on page 10 of the source. The "ball game" quote is mentioned on page 1 of [31]. I've added [37] for the mention of the spotted owl (penultimate paragraph). I've also rephrased it a little and given the quotes their own citation so that it's clearer where they come from. — Penitentes (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 46 OK
  • 69 OK
  • 70 OK
  • 77 OK
  • 80 I don't see this information in the source.
  • 86 OK
  • 87 OK
  • 92 OK
  • 99 Where does it give the title of the law?
  • 102 and 103: Where is the Tribal Council mentioned? Or FEMA?
  • 106 OK
  • 107 I figure there are no doubts about the figures given?

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus, I think I've addressed all of your spot-check comments so far! If you have any more clarifications or concerns I will get right on those as well. Thank you for your time—these were very useful evaluations. — Penitentes (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes muster, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Will be along for a review shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Just a couple of points on this:[reply]

August 22 onwards
Firefighting effort
  • "Additionally, on August 23": it's not great to start a new paragraph with "additionally": the new paragraph is evidence of a change in narrative, so it can safely be ditched

- SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2024 (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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fountain_Fire/archive1&oldid=1240719523"