This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2016 Fort McMurray wildfire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While aware that this is a breaking news story, could someone possibly resolve the two reffed conflicting statements regarding 29,000 and 80,000 people being affected? Which is accurate? Thanks. Hamamelis ( talk) 03:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I have some conflicts with the size of the fire, this article says 522895 ha but the Alberta Wildfire website says 522892 ha. -- Gmo'sAreBad Gmo'sAreBad ( talk) 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
(not sure if this is encyclopedia worthy): Facebook has activated their Safety Check https://www.facebook.com/safetycheck/fortmcmurray-wildfire-may03-2016/ (note: don't click "I'm safe if you're not in the impacted area <- dont include that note in article)
Canadian Red Cross is prepared (I assume currently providing) support and is accepting cash donations http://www.redcross.ca/
Radio stations based in Fort McMurray were forced to go off-air (lack of announcers/staff because of mandatory evacuation). Because CBC Edmonton is based in Edmonton, they are still able to broadcast. CBC Edmonton is broadcasting a special broadcast because of the fires. Regular programming occurs, but news coverage is every other hour. (hour after the hour / flip flop)
According to CBC Edmonton, "about" 18 firefighters and 4 firetrucks from Edmonton will arrive to assist (Twitter link is Edmonton fire cheif) https://twitter.com/yegfirechief/status/727709380964167680
Many motels and hotels (too many to list) are offering complementary rooms to those affected. (info is easily findable)
Super8 motel & surrounding Area completely gone (destroyed by fire). (including McDonald's and Shell gas station) in Fort McMurray https://twitter.com/TiffanyGlobal/status/727675602484928512 -- CoolCanuck ( talk) 07:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Providing times in MST and then providing the UTC time in brackets is consistent with WP:TIMEZONE. But is there some kind of conversion template? -- Natural RX 17:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
It is not necessary to have "year" in the title of the article, when there has realistically only been one such notable fire in Fort McMurray's history. If no one opposes, I intend to move this article to "Fort McMurray fire". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colipon ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I concur as well. I do not think it is necessary to include “2016” in the title of the article. If there so happens to be another major fire in Fort McMurray (which is very unlikely), we can simply rename the article again.
―
PapíDimmi (
talk)
21:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Without knowing how many houses are in a neighbourhood, things like 50% and 90% don't mean much. When next to actual numbers in other neighbourhoods, it gets a bit more confusing. I get that numbers aren't always available, especially early, but try to find them. A percentage in parentheses could stil work. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I added a reference for the Alberta government wildfire status map. Other pages on that website show detailed information on each active fire, including the Fort McMurray fire, and also add other useful government links we can incorporate into the article. Can someone with better skills than me convert the current status map into a Wikimedia image and also retain the info bubbles? - Tenebris 66.11.191.152 ( talk) 01:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.24.204 ( talk) 07:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
An interesting side note, Expedia.com lists 28 hotels in Fort McMurray. For every one of them, it gives the status as "we are sold out". I assume this means the hotels are closed, not full. Could we get clarification on this? Are there evacuees hunkering down in local hotels, who might be in danger? I emailed Expedia, but have not heard back. (That would be original research even if I do hear back, and I wouldn't add it to the article) If the hotels are closed, then this info doesn't need to be included in the article. But if they indeed are full, and locals/visitors are hunkered down in town, that is remarkable. Juneau Mike ( talk) 12:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm moving this here because I do not need to violate WP:3RR. There were two deaths that occurred on Highway 881 south of Fort McMurray. I think we can agree that these deaths were indirect (they were not killed by the fire itself), but the CBC article cited states the following:
Until we have another source that links the two, should be keep fatalities listed in the infobox as 0? Or should we differentiate between direct and indirect? -- Natural RX 15:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Are these fatalities a result of the fire? I don't know if vehicles crashing while in close proximity to the fire counts? I am kind of split. RES2773 ( talk) 00:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
This video of the fire is cc-licensed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ09mtOxKoo Victor Grigas ( talk) 03:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodhead/26738887316/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodhead/26160574883/ Victor Grigas ( talk) 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Free NASA images from here http://globalnews.ca/news/2683261/nasa-sees-fort-mcmurray-wildfires-from-space/ Victor Grigas ( talk) 04:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Super 8 motel burned https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodhead/26728653602/in/dateposted/ campground burned https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodhead/26549864230/in/photostream/ Flying J gas station burned https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodhead/26728712752/in/photostream/ Victor Grigas ( talk) 04:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
During firefighting operations, a Convair 540 crashed on landing at Manning Airport. This does not meet the threshold for an article, but is it worth a mention in this article? Mjroots ( talk) 19:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Be advised that I removed this as its location and the manner in which it was written could have appeared to insinuate that recent provincial funding cuts to wildfire prevention could have prevented this wildfire from becoming as devasting as it is. I hope/think that was not the intent, and that it was added in good faith, but we need to be very careful how we introduce something that is nothing more than a coincidence at this point. Content like this could lead to WP:SYNTH that the cuts are directly responsible for the magnitude of the wildfire. As it is reported in this article, the province stated "Regardless of the fiscal situation, when wildfires occur in our province, we take the necessary steps to protect Albertans, communities, and forests". If it is worthwhile to add this now or later when things settle down, please be mindful about tone and point of view, and lace it into a logical location. Cheers, Hwy43 ( talk) 03:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Seeing as this is spreading far beyond Fort McMurray, maybe this article should be renamed 2016 Alberta wildfire or 2016 Canadian wildfire or something. Simply south .... .. time, deparment skies for just 10 years 17:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I find this very interesting, but is it notable enough for inclusion, or is it WP:NOTNEWS, or is it too soon to tell? If he ends up getting fired over the comments after the investigation is complete, I would suggest the magnitude of this controversy would be elevated. Hwy43 ( talk) 18:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I specifically recall hearing the media refer to this fire as the "Horse River Fire" in the first 48 hours before it advanced into Fort McMurray. After finally being
referenced as
requested,
removal of the alternate name of this fire was unnecessary. It was supported by a
source from a national newspaper. This name has also been used in the media at the
provincial and
local levels as well. Let's be reasonable and return "Horse River Fire" Lake Fire" as the alternate name of the fire in the infobox.
Hwy43 (
talk)
03:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Would it be possible to give the size/area of the fire in SQUARE MILES equivalencies? Most people don't know how big (or small) "hectares" and "acres" are; as such, using only those measurements is not as informative, meaningful, nor impressive. 68.231.71.119 ( talk) 20:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
My query about stating area ALSO in square miles IS "a US view" and the only people who are familiar with hectares & acres are people who deal with or live on land IN rural areas. City-folk deal in blocks and miles and most of the US population live in an urban (community/town/city) situation. And, most people in the US are still not metric savvy. Just about any measurement not in inches, feet, yards, or miles has no 'real' meaning for the average US citizen. I have several post-collegiate years of education and degrees and even to me area measurements not in the 'American' form really don't 'tell' me anything.
As for converting either hectares or acres to sq. mi., there's no need to do it "off the top of one's head." I did an earlier edit and put in the sq. mi. equivalency, but only after I verified it at several sites that automatically do the conversion from hectares to sq. mi. The neighborhood where I lived has about 4 home/house plots per acre, but you cross the street where the homes/houses are closer together and it's more like 6 to 8 per acre; and in another area of my city, there are "farmettes" that have 1 to 2 homes/houses per acre. And this is true across the country. As such, there really is no standard of hectares/acres that the average US citizen can use or rely on to come up with a sense of how large (or small) of an area is being discussed. You talk in feet, yards, or miles, then we'll truly comprehend the size effected. 68.231.71.119 ( talk) 05:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't watch a lot of news on TV/cable/satellite but the other night there was nothing on that interested me, so I surfed all 5 local {Phoenix, Arizona, USA} English-language stations to pass the time. I was lucky enough to catch news/updates on the fire on 4 of the stations. All 4 stations gave the size of the fire in SQUARE MILES, and since the population of Phoenix (aka "The Valley of the Sun") is over 4 million, I'm obviously not the only person liking the size also given in sq.mi. 68.231.71.119 ( talk) 00:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with the locally used measurement system being the primary reported or officially used, but when there is international coverage and interest, the inclusion of equivalencies should be considered. The article already uses hectare/acre equivalencies, so why not go ahead and include sq.mi.? I like your idea for a template to provide alternate/equivalent units of measure. (If you go to the "Ongoing events" page [aka "Portal - Current events] and scroll down to the May 10 date and read the blurb on the fire, the size just happens to be given in sq.mi.!) 68.231.71.119 ( talk) 10:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The dominant fire regime in the boreal forest is high-intensity crown fires or severe surface fires of very large size, often more than 10,000 ha, and sometimes more than 400,000 ha-- DHeyward ( talk) 23:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I read well into the article, and can't figure out if this is a fire from trees burning - a forest fire, or if it is a fire fueled by the oil sands that's setting trees on fire too. That really needs to come out first thing in the article. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w ( talk) 02:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Are we sure that's actually a photo of a motel destroyed in the wildfire? The trees in the background look remarkably intact for there to have been a roaring furnace having passed through... AnnaGoFast ( talk) 07:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The costs given say $ BUT the article pointed to as a reference is a Canadian news article and it is given in Candian $ - which is about 77% value to US dollar. As all the other wikipedia articles give figures in US$ - this needs to be made clear WHICH dollar is being used and diambiguated with a US$ figure in brackets. OR saying clearly CAD$. I do not know how wikipedia does that. BUT I highlight it here as an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.76.250 ( talk) 09:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to guess that based on this page the fire is still active, but under control - DarkNITE ( talk) 00:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
It looks to me that this article is about a devastating event that destroyed buildings and evacuated a town, not a fire, of which Alberta and Saskatchewan have many. Perhaps the end date of the fire is not the best date to choose as an end date for the infobox. Perhaps the end date should be the end of the active event? 117Avenue ( talk) 03:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@ DominikWSP: Yes the fire is technically still on-going, but 99% of activity was in 2016 and all 2017 action thus far has been insignificant. In the spirit of WP:UCRN, the article should remain at 2016 Fort McMurray Wildfire. -- Acefitt 17:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, I understand this, however when the fire will be finally extinguished, I thought maybe it would be remembered as "the 2016-2017 fire", and not only as the 2016 fire. However I might be wrong and I am open to discussion. DominikWSP ( talk) 12:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The article should include more details on the evacuations, specifically how the residents were notified and which highways they took, and where they evacuated to, specific responses for animal rescues, etc. 171.116.245.211 ( talk) 13:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Article says the fire might not go out until Spring 2017. At this point, do we know when the fire was finally extinguished? Was it, in fact, extinguished? (Maybe it smoldered all winter long; dunno, could happen.) Thanks for any information on this point. 216.161.55.95 ( talk) 19:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Why would "Wildfire" be capitalized? I suggest making it lowercase instead. Lamp301 ( talk) 05:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and fixed the case since it seems uncontroversial in this case. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ribbet32 ( talk · contribs) 23:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
1a
Lede: "Personnel..." sentence needs attention; if there's a second list for just firefighters, there should be an "and" in front of RCMP; also, obviously Alberta firefighters took part; you mean from around different parts of Alberta. "It continued to spread"- coming from the last sentence, this reads as "The contamination continued to spread". Also, "the oil sands is the costliest disaster in Canadian history." Generally, let's cut down on "It "s in the lede.
Fire progression: "Government officials would also examine the potential for evacuations via Highway 63 during a flyover"- did they? "The fire was anticipated to double in size"- by who?
Aid response: "The Government of Alberta declared a provincial state of emergency"- when? "fifteen"- other uses of double digit numbers in the article simply use the digits.
Oil sands: "The wildfire also halted oil sands"- why open up a new section with "also"?
1b
Article seems to start in the middle of the story. The Cause section is buried- I know full well news on this came last (and we're still waiting) but this is a history article and historians start with the beginning.
4.
Best reviewed after 3a addressed.
5. No edit wars.
6. Well illustrated with free images
User:Natural RX apologies again for the delay; work and a bit of a natural disaster at home (not on the scale of this fire!) has slowed me down. The 2b-2d is all I have left to review; Will try to get this done Sunday. In the meantime, RENTCafé still doesn't seem to be any type of news/secondary source and I'd suggest replacing it. Ribbet32 ( talk) 20:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Resolved
|
---|
|
Thank you User:Natural RX for your hard work and patience Ribbet32 ( talk) 23:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2016 Fort McMurray wildfire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While aware that this is a breaking news story, could someone possibly resolve the two reffed conflicting statements regarding 29,000 and 80,000 people being affected? Which is accurate? Thanks. Hamamelis ( talk) 03:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I have some conflicts with the size of the fire, this article says 522895 ha but the Alberta Wildfire website says 522892 ha. -- Gmo'sAreBad Gmo'sAreBad ( talk) 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
(not sure if this is encyclopedia worthy): Facebook has activated their Safety Check https://www.facebook.com/safetycheck/fortmcmurray-wildfire-may03-2016/ (note: don't click "I'm safe if you're not in the impacted area <- dont include that note in article)
Canadian Red Cross is prepared (I assume currently providing) support and is accepting cash donations http://www.redcross.ca/
Radio stations based in Fort McMurray were forced to go off-air (lack of announcers/staff because of mandatory evacuation). Because CBC Edmonton is based in Edmonton, they are still able to broadcast. CBC Edmonton is broadcasting a special broadcast because of the fires. Regular programming occurs, but news coverage is every other hour. (hour after the hour / flip flop)
According to CBC Edmonton, "about" 18 firefighters and 4 firetrucks from Edmonton will arrive to assist (Twitter link is Edmonton fire cheif) https://twitter.com/yegfirechief/status/727709380964167680
Many motels and hotels (too many to list) are offering complementary rooms to those affected. (info is easily findable)
Super8 motel & surrounding Area completely gone (destroyed by fire). (including McDonald's and Shell gas station) in Fort McMurray https://twitter.com/TiffanyGlobal/status/727675602484928512 -- CoolCanuck ( talk) 07:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Providing times in MST and then providing the UTC time in brackets is consistent with WP:TIMEZONE. But is there some kind of conversion template? -- Natural RX 17:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
It is not necessary to have "year" in the title of the article, when there has realistically only been one such notable fire in Fort McMurray's history. If no one opposes, I intend to move this article to "Fort McMurray fire". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colipon ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I concur as well. I do not think it is necessary to include “2016” in the title of the article. If there so happens to be another major fire in Fort McMurray (which is very unlikely), we can simply rename the article again.
―
PapíDimmi (
talk)
21:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Without knowing how many houses are in a neighbourhood, things like 50% and 90% don't mean much. When next to actual numbers in other neighbourhoods, it gets a bit more confusing. I get that numbers aren't always available, especially early, but try to find them. A percentage in parentheses could stil work. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I added a reference for the Alberta government wildfire status map. Other pages on that website show detailed information on each active fire, including the Fort McMurray fire, and also add other useful government links we can incorporate into the article. Can someone with better skills than me convert the current status map into a Wikimedia image and also retain the info bubbles? - Tenebris 66.11.191.152 ( talk) 01:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.24.204 ( talk) 07:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
An interesting side note, Expedia.com lists 28 hotels in Fort McMurray. For every one of them, it gives the status as "we are sold out". I assume this means the hotels are closed, not full. Could we get clarification on this? Are there evacuees hunkering down in local hotels, who might be in danger? I emailed Expedia, but have not heard back. (That would be original research even if I do hear back, and I wouldn't add it to the article) If the hotels are closed, then this info doesn't need to be included in the article. But if they indeed are full, and locals/visitors are hunkered down in town, that is remarkable. Juneau Mike ( talk) 12:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm moving this here because I do not need to violate WP:3RR. There were two deaths that occurred on Highway 881 south of Fort McMurray. I think we can agree that these deaths were indirect (they were not killed by the fire itself), but the CBC article cited states the following:
Until we have another source that links the two, should be keep fatalities listed in the infobox as 0? Or should we differentiate between direct and indirect? -- Natural RX 15:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Are these fatalities a result of the fire? I don't know if vehicles crashing while in close proximity to the fire counts? I am kind of split. RES2773 ( talk) 00:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
This video of the fire is cc-licensed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ09mtOxKoo Victor Grigas ( talk) 03:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodhead/26738887316/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodhead/26160574883/ Victor Grigas ( talk) 04:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Free NASA images from here http://globalnews.ca/news/2683261/nasa-sees-fort-mcmurray-wildfires-from-space/ Victor Grigas ( talk) 04:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Super 8 motel burned https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodhead/26728653602/in/dateposted/ campground burned https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodhead/26549864230/in/photostream/ Flying J gas station burned https://www.flickr.com/photos/woodhead/26728712752/in/photostream/ Victor Grigas ( talk) 04:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
During firefighting operations, a Convair 540 crashed on landing at Manning Airport. This does not meet the threshold for an article, but is it worth a mention in this article? Mjroots ( talk) 19:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Be advised that I removed this as its location and the manner in which it was written could have appeared to insinuate that recent provincial funding cuts to wildfire prevention could have prevented this wildfire from becoming as devasting as it is. I hope/think that was not the intent, and that it was added in good faith, but we need to be very careful how we introduce something that is nothing more than a coincidence at this point. Content like this could lead to WP:SYNTH that the cuts are directly responsible for the magnitude of the wildfire. As it is reported in this article, the province stated "Regardless of the fiscal situation, when wildfires occur in our province, we take the necessary steps to protect Albertans, communities, and forests". If it is worthwhile to add this now or later when things settle down, please be mindful about tone and point of view, and lace it into a logical location. Cheers, Hwy43 ( talk) 03:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Seeing as this is spreading far beyond Fort McMurray, maybe this article should be renamed 2016 Alberta wildfire or 2016 Canadian wildfire or something. Simply south .... .. time, deparment skies for just 10 years 17:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I find this very interesting, but is it notable enough for inclusion, or is it WP:NOTNEWS, or is it too soon to tell? If he ends up getting fired over the comments after the investigation is complete, I would suggest the magnitude of this controversy would be elevated. Hwy43 ( talk) 18:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I specifically recall hearing the media refer to this fire as the "Horse River Fire" in the first 48 hours before it advanced into Fort McMurray. After finally being
referenced as
requested,
removal of the alternate name of this fire was unnecessary. It was supported by a
source from a national newspaper. This name has also been used in the media at the
provincial and
local levels as well. Let's be reasonable and return "Horse River Fire" Lake Fire" as the alternate name of the fire in the infobox.
Hwy43 (
talk)
03:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Would it be possible to give the size/area of the fire in SQUARE MILES equivalencies? Most people don't know how big (or small) "hectares" and "acres" are; as such, using only those measurements is not as informative, meaningful, nor impressive. 68.231.71.119 ( talk) 20:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
My query about stating area ALSO in square miles IS "a US view" and the only people who are familiar with hectares & acres are people who deal with or live on land IN rural areas. City-folk deal in blocks and miles and most of the US population live in an urban (community/town/city) situation. And, most people in the US are still not metric savvy. Just about any measurement not in inches, feet, yards, or miles has no 'real' meaning for the average US citizen. I have several post-collegiate years of education and degrees and even to me area measurements not in the 'American' form really don't 'tell' me anything.
As for converting either hectares or acres to sq. mi., there's no need to do it "off the top of one's head." I did an earlier edit and put in the sq. mi. equivalency, but only after I verified it at several sites that automatically do the conversion from hectares to sq. mi. The neighborhood where I lived has about 4 home/house plots per acre, but you cross the street where the homes/houses are closer together and it's more like 6 to 8 per acre; and in another area of my city, there are "farmettes" that have 1 to 2 homes/houses per acre. And this is true across the country. As such, there really is no standard of hectares/acres that the average US citizen can use or rely on to come up with a sense of how large (or small) of an area is being discussed. You talk in feet, yards, or miles, then we'll truly comprehend the size effected. 68.231.71.119 ( talk) 05:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't watch a lot of news on TV/cable/satellite but the other night there was nothing on that interested me, so I surfed all 5 local {Phoenix, Arizona, USA} English-language stations to pass the time. I was lucky enough to catch news/updates on the fire on 4 of the stations. All 4 stations gave the size of the fire in SQUARE MILES, and since the population of Phoenix (aka "The Valley of the Sun") is over 4 million, I'm obviously not the only person liking the size also given in sq.mi. 68.231.71.119 ( talk) 00:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with the locally used measurement system being the primary reported or officially used, but when there is international coverage and interest, the inclusion of equivalencies should be considered. The article already uses hectare/acre equivalencies, so why not go ahead and include sq.mi.? I like your idea for a template to provide alternate/equivalent units of measure. (If you go to the "Ongoing events" page [aka "Portal - Current events] and scroll down to the May 10 date and read the blurb on the fire, the size just happens to be given in sq.mi.!) 68.231.71.119 ( talk) 10:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The dominant fire regime in the boreal forest is high-intensity crown fires or severe surface fires of very large size, often more than 10,000 ha, and sometimes more than 400,000 ha-- DHeyward ( talk) 23:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I read well into the article, and can't figure out if this is a fire from trees burning - a forest fire, or if it is a fire fueled by the oil sands that's setting trees on fire too. That really needs to come out first thing in the article. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w ( talk) 02:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Are we sure that's actually a photo of a motel destroyed in the wildfire? The trees in the background look remarkably intact for there to have been a roaring furnace having passed through... AnnaGoFast ( talk) 07:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The costs given say $ BUT the article pointed to as a reference is a Canadian news article and it is given in Candian $ - which is about 77% value to US dollar. As all the other wikipedia articles give figures in US$ - this needs to be made clear WHICH dollar is being used and diambiguated with a US$ figure in brackets. OR saying clearly CAD$. I do not know how wikipedia does that. BUT I highlight it here as an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.76.250 ( talk) 09:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to guess that based on this page the fire is still active, but under control - DarkNITE ( talk) 00:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
It looks to me that this article is about a devastating event that destroyed buildings and evacuated a town, not a fire, of which Alberta and Saskatchewan have many. Perhaps the end date of the fire is not the best date to choose as an end date for the infobox. Perhaps the end date should be the end of the active event? 117Avenue ( talk) 03:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@ DominikWSP: Yes the fire is technically still on-going, but 99% of activity was in 2016 and all 2017 action thus far has been insignificant. In the spirit of WP:UCRN, the article should remain at 2016 Fort McMurray Wildfire. -- Acefitt 17:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, I understand this, however when the fire will be finally extinguished, I thought maybe it would be remembered as "the 2016-2017 fire", and not only as the 2016 fire. However I might be wrong and I am open to discussion. DominikWSP ( talk) 12:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The article should include more details on the evacuations, specifically how the residents were notified and which highways they took, and where they evacuated to, specific responses for animal rescues, etc. 171.116.245.211 ( talk) 13:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Article says the fire might not go out until Spring 2017. At this point, do we know when the fire was finally extinguished? Was it, in fact, extinguished? (Maybe it smoldered all winter long; dunno, could happen.) Thanks for any information on this point. 216.161.55.95 ( talk) 19:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Why would "Wildfire" be capitalized? I suggest making it lowercase instead. Lamp301 ( talk) 05:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and fixed the case since it seems uncontroversial in this case. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ribbet32 ( talk · contribs) 23:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
1a
Lede: "Personnel..." sentence needs attention; if there's a second list for just firefighters, there should be an "and" in front of RCMP; also, obviously Alberta firefighters took part; you mean from around different parts of Alberta. "It continued to spread"- coming from the last sentence, this reads as "The contamination continued to spread". Also, "the oil sands is the costliest disaster in Canadian history." Generally, let's cut down on "It "s in the lede.
Fire progression: "Government officials would also examine the potential for evacuations via Highway 63 during a flyover"- did they? "The fire was anticipated to double in size"- by who?
Aid response: "The Government of Alberta declared a provincial state of emergency"- when? "fifteen"- other uses of double digit numbers in the article simply use the digits.
Oil sands: "The wildfire also halted oil sands"- why open up a new section with "also"?
1b
Article seems to start in the middle of the story. The Cause section is buried- I know full well news on this came last (and we're still waiting) but this is a history article and historians start with the beginning.
4.
Best reviewed after 3a addressed.
5. No edit wars.
6. Well illustrated with free images
User:Natural RX apologies again for the delay; work and a bit of a natural disaster at home (not on the scale of this fire!) has slowed me down. The 2b-2d is all I have left to review; Will try to get this done Sunday. In the meantime, RENTCafé still doesn't seem to be any type of news/secondary source and I'd suggest replacing it. Ribbet32 ( talk) 20:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Resolved
|
---|
|
Thank you User:Natural RX for your hard work and patience Ribbet32 ( talk) 23:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)