Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sawmill Fire (2017)/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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 27 June 2022 [1].


Nominator(s): –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some black comedy. The first (I'm pretty sure) wildfire caused by a gender reveal party, which resulted in the incineration of ~47,000 acres of Federal and Arizona state property in April 2017. I started this article in mid-2021 and soon thereafter got it through GAN - now I'm here to collect my first Four Award 😊 –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sure thing! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

edit

Staking my spot out, review to follow. ♠PMC(talk) 18:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is orthogonal to the FAC review, but it seems like this should be the primary topic for Sawmill Fire, as the current occupant there is only a redirect to a broad-scope article about 2016 California wildfires in general. (And if not, I think the disambiguation style for dated events is usually year first, as in "2017 Sawmill Fire", no?)
  • I think you can trim from "at first contain and then extinguish" to "contain and extinguish", as generally speaking one follows the other.
  • "who had shot the tannerite target and then cooperated with first responders" the second clause there feels weird. If his cooperation had anything to do with the charges, that should be explained (something like, "his charge was reduced to X because he cooperated"), otherwise it seems odd to throw into that sentence
    • While I agree, I included that to make the article less of a rag on Dickey. There's no way to talk about this even with the knowledge that he felt bad about this and cooperated with the authorities without coming down on him like a ton of bricks. But I didn't think it in the spirit of NPOV or BLP to not mention this. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You could rejigger lead para 2 a bit, something along the lines of "The fire was started by accident by Dickey, who immediately alerted emergency services and cooperated. US Attorney's Office investigated and charged him with blah blah." That takes the cooperation clause out of the charging sentence where it doesn't belong, and also emphasizes his acceptance of responsibility by putting it at the beginning of the paragraph. ♠PMC(talk) 12:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it may be worth briefly explaining, for the lucky few who have no idea what a gender reveal party is, why on earth someone would be setting off high explosives at one
    • I am not so sure about this; should I explain why someone would do something dangerous and not entirely thought through at any party? What more can be said clinically here about the circumstances that led to this fire? Moreover the better article for detailing this ridiculous, dangerous, and frankly dumb phenomenon is Gender reveal party, I feel. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not talking about going into detail, but arguably someone who knows absolutely nothing about the concept of a gender reveal party is going to be lost without clicking through to another page. It doesn't hurt to throw in even something like "the target was intended to produce colored smoke" just to give some kind of clue. ♠PMC(talk) 12:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    mmmm okay. I've added that the target was packed with blue dye. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but their efforts were further hindered by the addition of the rough terrain" - I think you could trim to "were hindered by the rough terrain"
  • Do we know why the Red Cross shelters went unused? It's fine if not, just stood out as an interesting curiosity
  • What's a Type-II incident? Was this one? This should either be clarified for the reader or removed as it doesn't add much to understanding
  • "allowing the now about six-hundred firefighters present" - this feels awkward but I can't figure out how to reword it
  • Also, you have this in text but later use 800 in numerals - should be consistent, no?
  • What's a Type I team?
  • I'm not going to die on this hill, but I'm not sure the inflation conversions are needed for something that only happened 5 years ago
  • "Route 83 was reopened..." this whole sentence is a bit awkward. If the reopening and the evac order lifting happened on the same day, the date should be at the end of the sentence. Meanwhile, it feels like highway repairs belong in Aftermath
  • "Wind as fast as 45 miles..." expected when? Came when?
  • Honestly you could tighten this down a lot. Something like "Although winds reached up to 45 miles per hour on April Whatever, the fire had been fully contained and evacuation orders were lifted by April 30."
  • You explain BLM under aftermath, but it's first mentioned under Fire, so that should be moved
  • You could probably merge the firefighters being demobbed to the previous sentence, something like "command was returned to X Y Z and the firefighters were demobilized."
  • What's total foliage mortality and how does it differ from an area being burned in general?
  • You could ditch "There," in "There, he pled guilty"
  • I think "followed" is probably more accurate than "succeeded," as succeeded kind of implies taking the place of

Okay, that about wraps it up. You know me - if you disagree, we can discuss, etc etc. ♠PMC(talk) 08:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missed one - "public conscience" in the lead should be "public's consciousness" ♠PMC(talk) 12:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay! All looks good to me now and I am pleased to support. ♠PMC(talk) 19:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "Firefighters began to pursue full suppression of the fire". This seems jargony. What does it actually mean?
  • "their efforts were further hindered by". Hindered further to what?
  • "~600". Use prose, not ~.
  • "the fire was fully contained and evacuation orders were lifted". Suggest 'the fire was fully contained and all evacuation orders were lifted'.

That's all. A nice little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done :) –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Nikkimaria

edit

spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I've addressed your comments and await the spot-check. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the follow-up on FN11? It still doesn't match the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Addressed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Queries by WereSpielChequers

edit

Interesting story, thanks for writing it, I'm almost tempted to suggest an April 1st FA candidate

  • Sources make it clear that the shooter was also the father, and presumably the creator of the target. But the wording could be interpreted as blaming the person who fired the shot rather than the person who made a target for explosive not just coloured die. I get that BLP applies, but have you thought of mentioning that the shooter was the father, I haven't checked all sources, I don't have access to at least two of them, but the sources I have looked at state he was the father and imply that he knew what was in the target.
  • I'm butting in a little here since I still have this on my watchlist, but the inclusion of explosive in the target was entirely on purpose, and the guy knew very well what he was firing at. The idea was to create an explosion of color that revealed to onlookers the sex of the baby (see for example the Tannerite website - they sell 'em premade and the video shows how they're supposed to turn out). He just didn't realize it was going to ignite the grass around it and turn into a great big conflagration. ♠PMC(talk) 23:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added that Dennis Dickey was the father. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.