Wildfire was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Wildfire:
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 136 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 9 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Nherbison.
Please add some info about and from this report to the article. It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:
UN researchers publish a comprehensive study about climate change impacted wildfires with projections (e.g. a 31–57% increase of extreme wildfires by 2100) and information about impacts and countermeasures. [1] [2]
I think that only including the above info in section #"Climate change effects" may be insufficient and that it would be good to add information about e.g./especially countermeasures, including (but not only) from this report.
Moreover, I think Effects of climate change#Wildfires ( discuss) should also be expanded with brief info from this report.
References
Prototyperspective ( talk) 08:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
In this article no mention was made about the damage to oxygen production by wildfires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.38.69 ( talk) 23:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I've just removed the further reading list. I don't see how this list is all that beneficial, given that the article already has plenty of in-line citations. Any of the important publications are likely those that have been cited multiple times in the in-line citations. Apart from that, the list of publication is rather Global North centric. EMsmile ( talk) 13:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I've shortened the lead a little bit. I think it's now fine. Hi User:Thenightaway, I think it was you who had added the "lead too long" tag? Do you agree that it's now OK? 387 words is a normal lead length. I'd say it could even be expanded to 500 words. Hi User:Rjensen I don't agree with the edit you made on 9 June: You seem to have made the lead very short and copied the old lead text to a section that you called "history". It wasn't actually content for a history section, also there is already a history section towards the lower part of the article. So I have re-instated the old lead but shortened it a bit. EMsmile ( talk) 13:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the article is currently too long. It has 69 kB (10687 words) "readable prose size". I think it would be good to bring it down to around 50 kB. Looking at the section sizes (see at the top of the talk page), my initial feeling would be that the sections on "ecology" and on "human risk and exposure" should probably be condensed a bit. EMsmile ( talk) 13:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
This article uses the short ref style but without hyperlinks from the reference list to the sources list. This needs to be improved to make it more user friendly. I would opt to convert the article over to long ref style. I won't have time to tackle this straight away but eventually it needs doing, I think. EMsmile ( talk) 08:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
There are no figures at all about the different raisons of wildfires. It seems to me that the more frequent are human ones. 37.174.41.65 ( talk) 12:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
the topics of the article aren't too much, but I would still suggest to combine the topics: "Impacts on ecosystems", "impacts on humans", and "health effects" into a single topic named "Impacts" and the the three current topics could be it's sub-topics... Suryanshu Gupta ( talk) 10:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I've removed this text block about surface air quality because it was rather wordy and didn't really fit in my opinion. Perhaps it fits better in a sub-article?
Surface air quality:
Whether transported smoke plumes are relevant for surface air quality depends on where they exist in the atmosphere, which in turn depends on the initial injection height of the convective smoke plume into the atmosphere. Smoke that is injected above the planetary boundary layer (PBL) may be detectable from spaceborne satellites and play a role in altering the Earth's energy budget, but would not mix down to the surface where it would impact air quality and human health. Alternatively, smoke confined to a shallow PBL (through nighttime stable stratification of the atmosphere or terrain trapping) may become particularly concentrated and problematic for surface air quality. Wildfire intensity and smoke emissions are not constant throughout the fire lifetime and tend to follow a diurnal cycle that peaks in late afternoon and early evening, and which may be reasonably approximated using a monomodal or bimodal normal distribution. [1] EMsmile ( talk) 09:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
References
Wildfire was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Wildfire:
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 136 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 9 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Nherbison.
Please add some info about and from this report to the article. It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:
UN researchers publish a comprehensive study about climate change impacted wildfires with projections (e.g. a 31–57% increase of extreme wildfires by 2100) and information about impacts and countermeasures. [1] [2]
I think that only including the above info in section #"Climate change effects" may be insufficient and that it would be good to add information about e.g./especially countermeasures, including (but not only) from this report.
Moreover, I think Effects of climate change#Wildfires ( discuss) should also be expanded with brief info from this report.
References
Prototyperspective ( talk) 08:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
In this article no mention was made about the damage to oxygen production by wildfires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.38.69 ( talk) 23:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I've just removed the further reading list. I don't see how this list is all that beneficial, given that the article already has plenty of in-line citations. Any of the important publications are likely those that have been cited multiple times in the in-line citations. Apart from that, the list of publication is rather Global North centric. EMsmile ( talk) 13:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I've shortened the lead a little bit. I think it's now fine. Hi User:Thenightaway, I think it was you who had added the "lead too long" tag? Do you agree that it's now OK? 387 words is a normal lead length. I'd say it could even be expanded to 500 words. Hi User:Rjensen I don't agree with the edit you made on 9 June: You seem to have made the lead very short and copied the old lead text to a section that you called "history". It wasn't actually content for a history section, also there is already a history section towards the lower part of the article. So I have re-instated the old lead but shortened it a bit. EMsmile ( talk) 13:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the article is currently too long. It has 69 kB (10687 words) "readable prose size". I think it would be good to bring it down to around 50 kB. Looking at the section sizes (see at the top of the talk page), my initial feeling would be that the sections on "ecology" and on "human risk and exposure" should probably be condensed a bit. EMsmile ( talk) 13:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
This article uses the short ref style but without hyperlinks from the reference list to the sources list. This needs to be improved to make it more user friendly. I would opt to convert the article over to long ref style. I won't have time to tackle this straight away but eventually it needs doing, I think. EMsmile ( talk) 08:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
There are no figures at all about the different raisons of wildfires. It seems to me that the more frequent are human ones. 37.174.41.65 ( talk) 12:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
the topics of the article aren't too much, but I would still suggest to combine the topics: "Impacts on ecosystems", "impacts on humans", and "health effects" into a single topic named "Impacts" and the the three current topics could be it's sub-topics... Suryanshu Gupta ( talk) 10:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I've removed this text block about surface air quality because it was rather wordy and didn't really fit in my opinion. Perhaps it fits better in a sub-article?
Surface air quality:
Whether transported smoke plumes are relevant for surface air quality depends on where they exist in the atmosphere, which in turn depends on the initial injection height of the convective smoke plume into the atmosphere. Smoke that is injected above the planetary boundary layer (PBL) may be detectable from spaceborne satellites and play a role in altering the Earth's energy budget, but would not mix down to the surface where it would impact air quality and human health. Alternatively, smoke confined to a shallow PBL (through nighttime stable stratification of the atmosphere or terrain trapping) may become particularly concentrated and problematic for surface air quality. Wildfire intensity and smoke emissions are not constant throughout the fire lifetime and tend to follow a diurnal cycle that peaks in late afternoon and early evening, and which may be reasonably approximated using a monomodal or bimodal normal distribution. [1] EMsmile ( talk) 09:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
References