Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 5 March 2024 [1].

Boundary Fire (2017)

Nominator(s): – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 04:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC) & ♠ PMC♠ (talk), Guerillero Parlez Moi reply

This article is about another Arizona wildfire from 2017, a busy year. In this particular fire, high winds, high temperatures, low/no humidity, and the crispy remnants of a fire 17 years before were combined by lightning into a blaze that scorched almost 18,000 acres of the Coconino National Forest. Also, this is another really short article at 828 words as of time of writing. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 04:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Note

As Vami has passed away, Guerillero and I will be taking over this nomination. I don't want to replace Vami as nominator, so I've put our names down as shepherds instead. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

No question of replacing Vami as nom, I've just made you co-noms, which is consistent with how we've handled other instances of editors taking over a nomination. This is part of Vami's legacy, but credit where credit's due, I'm sure he'd be pleased that you've seen it through. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 21:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Kusma

Will try to do a full review later. For the moment, just one question: why is it called "Boundary fire"? — Kusma ( talk) 21:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I cannot recall a reason being given in the sources I read. If I were to guess, it was because the mountain on which the fire began is on the boundary between the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 22:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The other Boundary Fire article (btw is one of them the primary topic?) just tells us it was near an international border. Maybe you can just state the "on the boundary" somewhere in the article, letting the reader conclude what they want from this information? A map showing the two National Forests would be really helpful to contextualize this, and a map showing the National Forests and the extent of fire damage would be perfect. Not sure whether you'd need WP:MAPREQ for this. — Kusma ( talk) 06:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I am going to see what I can do without an ArcGIS pro licence -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Great to see that you as a mapmaker are helping with this. Although it is technically already linked via the coordinates template, I think something based on at least annotating the OSM map [2] (one zoom level in you find Kendrick Mountain, but you lose Flagstaff on my monitor) would already be very helpful. — Kusma ( talk) 08:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Kusma: I made File:Boundary Fire (2017).png. I guess I could make a second map that showed the area, but I think there is more EV from showing the area burnt -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Guerillero, very nice. I made it display slightly larger by removing the fixed px width in Template:Infobox wildfire. A scale on the map or some information in the caption on how large the area is that we are looking at would be helpful, but other than that this works nicely. Further context is probably only really feasible via something like an interactive map, which is already accessible in the coordinates template. — Kusma ( talk) 22:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

A couple of review comments:

  • Background: perhaps explain here that the city of Flagstaff is nearby? In the "Fire" section we have that "Smoke [...] drifted into communities such as Flagstaff, 17 mi (27 km) west of the fire." Looking at a map, Flagstaff appears to be to the southeast?
    • It's basically smack dab between Kaibab to the north and Cococino to the south. I've added a ref with a map and noted the location.
  • "expected a typical season in the state's northern forests" I know zilch about Arizona; are these two forests "northern forests"?
    • They're towards the north end of the state, so I would assume so
  • Fire: how far away is the Grand Canyon?
    • About 65 miles north, more or less, now noted
  • Is "decided to confine the Boundary Fire to a 15,000-acre (6,100 ha) area" really the same concept as the source's "allow the fire to burn out from within a 15,000-acre planning area"?
    • I've clarified the intention to let it burn out from within its confines.
  • Aftermath: "was closed in July 2018 again" I'm not a native speaker, but isn't "was closed again in July 2018" more natural?
    • Yes
  • Potential sources seemingly not used but worth checking out:

Overall a nice little article; perhaps it is worth out checking a few more sources, but it shouldn't be too hard to get it over the line. — Kusma ( talk) 21:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I've responded to the comments, but haven't gone through the sources yet. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Good changes, but Flagstaff is still not "west of the fire". — Kusma ( talk) 09:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Hi Kusma, I finally figured out what was going on here and have adjusted to say "surrounding the fire" instead. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
        • The double mention of Flagstaff there is slightly duplicative, but we here at the Department of Redundancy Department don't mind. I don't think use of my suggested sources is absolutely necessary. Happy to support, sad to think of Vami. — Kusma ( talk) 00:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Support from ZKang123

A rather short article to review! Some grammar nitpicks:

  • "have been increased in" – do you mean "have been increasing"?
    • Fixed
  • For the sentence beginning with "Arizona State Forester Jeff Whitney" – I would also mention the date of the Forester's report (April 2017 would do).
    • Fixed
  • "on the northeast slope of Kendrick Peak, within the Kaibab" – remove comma
    • Fixed
  • Wouldn't it be more succinct to just mention boundary fire in the first sentence of the fire section? (e.g. ...and started the Boundary Fire on the northeast slope...)
    • Revised sentence
  • "US 180 was closed overnight as firefighters monitored the fire's spread,[13] then was remained until further notice along with the vicinity of the fire on June 9." – I'm a bit unsure about how the latter clause is necessary; I mean, was it planned to reopen the highway on June 9? Something is also rather awkward about the sentence. Maybe like: "As firefighters monitored the fire's spread, US 180 was closed on that night until further notice."
    • Revised sentence, removing the redundant clause
  • "drifted into communities such as Flagstaff" – are there also other reportings from other towns?
    • Yes, but there's enough of them that it's better to sum up, and Flagstaff works as a representative as it's the largest/most significant town in the area
  • "Again fanned" – "Further fanned"
    • Left it as "fanned" instead
  • "was being managed by 261 firefighters." – I'm unsure if "managed" is the proper verb for this sentence. Also would just say "was managed"
    • Managed works as a verb here. I think "being managed" sounds smoother so I'm going to leave it
  • "because of a civilian drone flown over the fire." – "because a civilian drone flew over the fire"
    • Same as above I think the original is better
      • I still think it's still rather clunky and unnaturally worded.-- ZKang123 ( talk) 01:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • " Four evacuated civilians suffered injuries related to the fire." – curious, was it said about where the civilians from? Like are they residents or rangers?
    • The report doesn't say
  • "said in a statement that the closure" – "in a statement" is unnecessary
    • Trimmed
  • "because of the potential for landslides" – "due to risks of landslides"
    • Revised

The lead is rather short, though understandably the article is also short itself.

    • Expanded slightly including aftermath
  • "leftovers from a previous wildfire" – there's this mention in the lead, but where else in the body?
    • "Owing to the danger posed to firefighters by difficult terrain and leftover dead trees from the Pumpkin Fire in 2000"
  • Maybe I would also briefly mention the aftermath in the lead as well.
  • Is this fire also part of the general 2017 Arizona wildfires?
    • Yes

I think that's all for me.-- ZKang123 ( talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ZKang123, responses above, let me know how you're feeling. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Made a few ces on the article itself. Happy to support. Also saluting to the late Vami.-- ZKang123 ( talk) 01:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review - pass

The sole image in the infobox is free-use, with alt-text. No other outstanding issues. Passed.-- ZKang123 ( talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Image re reply

Do you think File:Boundary Fire 2017 (34583638403).jpg should be PD? The author seems to have been an employee of the Forest Service when he took the photo, and seems to still be one today. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Eddie891

I will review this. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Having some trouble reviewing this at the moment... the loss of Vami hasn't really hit until now. I will circle back here, hopefully by the weekend. Eddie891 Talk Work
Take all the time you need. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • " This fire is part of the 2017 Arizona wildfires." I get the intention to link the wildfire season, but this feels awkward to me-- of course a wildfire in 2017 in Arizona was part of the 2017 Arizona wildfires. Could the link be placed in some other sentence?
  • This was added in a copyedit by another editor; I've moved it so the lead reads "The Boundary Fire was a 2017 wildfire in Arizona" instead
  • "Damage to the areas's foliage increased the risk of landslides for the next few years." In the article, you only establish this in the following year.
  • Tweaked
  • "Between The Boundary Fire was one" something doesn't flow quite right in this sentence, also T probably should be uncapitalized
  • Looks like that was a typo
  • " and was being managed by 261 firefighters" Do we generally describe fires as being 'managed' rather than 'fought'?
  • "block 30 percent of the fire's possible spread" is that what containment means? I thought it was just the percentage of the perimeter that had been stopped -- which isn't necessarily the same as the sentence in the article.
  • Yeah, I think Vami misread this source, I've revised this bit entirely
  • "Aerial firefighting assets were temporarily grounded on June 25 because a civilian drone flew over the fire" why would this have led to the grounding?
  • Risk of accidents. When you have some jackwagon flying his unregistered drone around inside your airspace, not coordinating with you and your assets, it causes a huge risk for collision. You see it at airports and stuff too, if you have a drone sighting at an airport, that airport is gonna lock down for a bit until the drone is gone.

That's a first pass here. Nothing crazy. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks Eddie, I've responded above. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Serial

Placeholder for review. ——Serial 20:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Serial Number 54129: Are you going to review this soon? — VAUGHAN J. ( TALK) 09:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Apologies for being so late. I'm not going to dig around for something to say artificially; the article is in fine enough condition to allow me to support. This is possible not just because of the consistent quality of Vami IV's work—and this is no exception—but because of the thorough reviews and commentary of his comrades now, including the shepherds who have gently, yet firmly, guided their scion towards its deserved promotion. Fine work has been done by all, but they should be singled out for particular respect and thanks for taking on an emotionally draining task with professionalism, promptitude and understanding. Thank you.
To look for trivia to change this late would be an insult to all, merely adjustment fetishism on my part. It would also be petty and against the spirit—fundamental to what we do—that, though we might sign it and our rights to it away every time we hit the 'publish' button, every article we write stays part of us, we individualize it, it contains a nucleus of our personality. That can never be removed. It distinguishes our work from AI and Chatbot GPt. They say 'perfect is the enemy of good'; it is also the enemy of human. While Vami IV wrote, as we all do, for 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit', he also wrote, as we all do, for the encyclopedia that immortalizes our contributions forever. We honour Vami IV, who is immortalised through his work, while we can—and should—tweak it to the best it can be, as Vami IV would want, Vami cannot and never will be edited out of his work.
Ave, Vami IV.

Nice article, bro. See you. ——Serial 12:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

A beautiful tribute to Vami. It's a terrible day for rain. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

NightWolf1223

Placeholder. I hope to get around to this by the weekend, ping me if I haven't. NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 02:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

My deepest appologies for not getting to this sooner. Vami's passing in adition to the fact that I have not had much time ment that this slipped of my radar. Overall, a well-written article. Just some nitpicks:
  • "Visibility along US 180 had improved enough": US 180 needs to be hyphenated.
    • That does not appear to be standard formatting for US roads
  • " After June 12, the winds abated" I would change to "winds had reduced"
    • I've revised it to avoid both phrasings because I don't like either
  • "the 2017 season; on July 4th": the semicolon should be changed to a period.
    • I don't think so, the clauses are related.

This is my first-ever time reviewing a FAC. Let me know if I made any mistakes. I may have more comments later. NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 15:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • NightWolf1223, I've replied, one change made but the others no. I've also reformatted your comments here into a bulleted list to make them easier to respond to. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Support Thanks for your diligence in sheparding this article to FA. NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 18:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

UC

My path and Vami's never really crossed, but he is clearly a huge loss to the project. Thank you to PMC and Guerillero for taking this one on.

  • Suggest getting the year of the fire into the first sentence, per MOS:FIRST. I would also suggest getting in the words "United States" from a more WP:POPE angle.
  • This fire is part of the 2017 Arizona wildfires: not sure about the tense here, and I suspect there's a more elegant way to get it in (as we have in the Background) section
    • Yes and no, respectively. Adding United States feels clunky -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Let me think on this: I'll have a look at some other US FAs and see what they do. UndercoverClassicist T· C 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I would consider adding an inflation-adjusted equivalent to the dollar amounts per WP:ENDURE: as time goes on, people's instinct for how much money those represent is going to be increasingly out of whack.
  • human-induced climate change has caused them to increase in number, destructiveness, duration, and frequency: does the cited source give a sense of "since...", and if so, could we bring that in?
    • Just an 8-fold increase between 1985 and 2023, which isn't helpful -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
      • I'd stick that in: it's a much more concrete statement both of the scale and the timeframe of the problem. UndercoverClassicist T· C 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • In a report released April 2017: suggest making explicit that this was a month or so before the fire. Possibly an EngVar thing, but in April to me.
  • at about 2:02 pm (MT) : my understanding is that we don't usually specify the time zone when it's local time.
  • {{green|That night, fire managers closed US 180 until further notice}}: I would cut until further notice, as that notice was eventually given.
  • By June 9, the Boundary Fire had grown to 1,550 acres (630 ha) and was burning along US 180 and within both National Forests: perhaps I've missed something, but my understanding from the preceding paragraph was that it was always burning within both national forests?
    • My understanding of this map is that the fire was only in Coconino NF until the 9th. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
      • In that case, we need to adjust The Boundary Fire was sparked when lightning struck the northeast slope of Kendrick Peak within the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests at about 2:02 pm on June 1, 2017.. UndercoverClassicist T· C 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
        To me, "within the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests" modifies Kendrick Peak, not the place of ignition. However, I see your point -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Can we link and explain aerial ignition?
    It got merged, but the link should be helpful -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • soil burn severity: this might be a good candidate to rephrase in plain language.
  • Low wind speeds allowed ground crews and aerial assets to continue with controlled burns from June 15 to June 19: are all four citations really needed for this?
  • The next day brought light precipitation: I'd go with light rain as clearer (it was nearly 50 degrees C: clearly not snowing!)
  • to reopen the road to the public : would cut to the public as implied.
  • firefighters raised containment of the Boundary Fire to 42 percent: I'm not sure exactly what this means, nor, earlier, for allowed firefighters to block 30 percent of the fire's possible spread (does that mean it only affected 70% of the area it would have without human intervention?)
  • ($11.2 million, adjusted for inflation: needs a date.
  • three percent suffered total foliage mortality: could this be linked or explained?
  • Kaibab National Forest Supervisor stated that: I think we're missing a The or A at the start here.
  • In the bibliography, I think Williams-Grand Canyon News should have an endash, not a hyphen.
  • Newspaper titles are inconsistent between title case and sentence case.
  • Area burnt by the Boundary Fire according to the National Interagency Fire Center: I would put a comma before according to.

As usual, a parade of nitpicks: I hope at least some are useful. UndercoverClassicist T· C 18:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

They all sound reasonable to me. I will talk a look tomorrow. Thank you, UC, for your review -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

SC

Placeholder. - SchroCat ( talk) 13:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Not much from me; all minor stuff.

Progression
  • "Fanned by strong winds on June 10 and June 11": Just "June 10 and 11" would be fine
  • "secure fire lines": is a fire line the same as a fire break? If so, it would be better to call it that, given you've used and linked it above
  • "reopen the road to the public with": -> "reopen the road with"
  • "On June 23 the USFS": comma after 23 for consistency?
Aftermath
  • "Kaibab National Forest Supervisor": Needs an article (either definite or indefinite)
  • "at risk for landslides": is this correct in AmEng? (I'm more used to seeing "at risk of landslides").
    • Tbh I'm not sure (you know me and Engvars...). It doesn't read incorrectly to me but it's also not anything I'll fight about if it's wrong.

I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 10:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • All the rest done, with just that one comment. Thanks, SchroCat. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Support All good from me. Thanks and so long Vami. - SchroCat ( talk) 22:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Source review

Spot-check upon request. Is it correct that the name of the national forest here is used as a publisher name? The Arizona Daily Sun seems to be sometimes accessed via Newspapers.com and sometimes marked with a closed access thingy. One or two articles here may be useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Premeditated Chaos, Guerillero, can you check this pls? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, I am working on it -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Timberlake et al. 2020 looks like the only listed high-quality RS with some meat. It is an ethnography, so it is going to take a bit to parse -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Done. I added how Boundary changed how the Government Fire was managed. The rest of the five mentions are covered by other sources -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I guess this passes, then, with caveats about no spotcheck and not being familiar with the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:57, 5 March 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.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Boundary_Fire_(2017)/archive1&oldid=1212061760"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 5 March 2024 [1].

Boundary Fire (2017)

Nominator(s): – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 04:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC) & ♠ PMC♠ (talk), Guerillero Parlez Moi reply

This article is about another Arizona wildfire from 2017, a busy year. In this particular fire, high winds, high temperatures, low/no humidity, and the crispy remnants of a fire 17 years before were combined by lightning into a blaze that scorched almost 18,000 acres of the Coconino National Forest. Also, this is another really short article at 828 words as of time of writing. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 04:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Note

As Vami has passed away, Guerillero and I will be taking over this nomination. I don't want to replace Vami as nominator, so I've put our names down as shepherds instead. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

No question of replacing Vami as nom, I've just made you co-noms, which is consistent with how we've handled other instances of editors taking over a nomination. This is part of Vami's legacy, but credit where credit's due, I'm sure he'd be pleased that you've seen it through. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 21:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Kusma

Will try to do a full review later. For the moment, just one question: why is it called "Boundary fire"? — Kusma ( talk) 21:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I cannot recall a reason being given in the sources I read. If I were to guess, it was because the mountain on which the fire began is on the boundary between the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 22:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply
The other Boundary Fire article (btw is one of them the primary topic?) just tells us it was near an international border. Maybe you can just state the "on the boundary" somewhere in the article, letting the reader conclude what they want from this information? A map showing the two National Forests would be really helpful to contextualize this, and a map showing the National Forests and the extent of fire damage would be perfect. Not sure whether you'd need WP:MAPREQ for this. — Kusma ( talk) 06:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I am going to see what I can do without an ArcGIS pro licence -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Great to see that you as a mapmaker are helping with this. Although it is technically already linked via the coordinates template, I think something based on at least annotating the OSM map [2] (one zoom level in you find Kendrick Mountain, but you lose Flagstaff on my monitor) would already be very helpful. — Kusma ( talk) 08:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Kusma: I made File:Boundary Fire (2017).png. I guess I could make a second map that showed the area, but I think there is more EV from showing the area burnt -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Guerillero, very nice. I made it display slightly larger by removing the fixed px width in Template:Infobox wildfire. A scale on the map or some information in the caption on how large the area is that we are looking at would be helpful, but other than that this works nicely. Further context is probably only really feasible via something like an interactive map, which is already accessible in the coordinates template. — Kusma ( talk) 22:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

A couple of review comments:

  • Background: perhaps explain here that the city of Flagstaff is nearby? In the "Fire" section we have that "Smoke [...] drifted into communities such as Flagstaff, 17 mi (27 km) west of the fire." Looking at a map, Flagstaff appears to be to the southeast?
    • It's basically smack dab between Kaibab to the north and Cococino to the south. I've added a ref with a map and noted the location.
  • "expected a typical season in the state's northern forests" I know zilch about Arizona; are these two forests "northern forests"?
    • They're towards the north end of the state, so I would assume so
  • Fire: how far away is the Grand Canyon?
    • About 65 miles north, more or less, now noted
  • Is "decided to confine the Boundary Fire to a 15,000-acre (6,100 ha) area" really the same concept as the source's "allow the fire to burn out from within a 15,000-acre planning area"?
    • I've clarified the intention to let it burn out from within its confines.
  • Aftermath: "was closed in July 2018 again" I'm not a native speaker, but isn't "was closed again in July 2018" more natural?
    • Yes
  • Potential sources seemingly not used but worth checking out:

Overall a nice little article; perhaps it is worth out checking a few more sources, but it shouldn't be too hard to get it over the line. — Kusma ( talk) 21:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I've responded to the comments, but haven't gone through the sources yet. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Good changes, but Flagstaff is still not "west of the fire". — Kusma ( talk) 09:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Hi Kusma, I finally figured out what was going on here and have adjusted to say "surrounding the fire" instead. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
        • The double mention of Flagstaff there is slightly duplicative, but we here at the Department of Redundancy Department don't mind. I don't think use of my suggested sources is absolutely necessary. Happy to support, sad to think of Vami. — Kusma ( talk) 00:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Support from ZKang123

A rather short article to review! Some grammar nitpicks:

  • "have been increased in" – do you mean "have been increasing"?
    • Fixed
  • For the sentence beginning with "Arizona State Forester Jeff Whitney" – I would also mention the date of the Forester's report (April 2017 would do).
    • Fixed
  • "on the northeast slope of Kendrick Peak, within the Kaibab" – remove comma
    • Fixed
  • Wouldn't it be more succinct to just mention boundary fire in the first sentence of the fire section? (e.g. ...and started the Boundary Fire on the northeast slope...)
    • Revised sentence
  • "US 180 was closed overnight as firefighters monitored the fire's spread,[13] then was remained until further notice along with the vicinity of the fire on June 9." – I'm a bit unsure about how the latter clause is necessary; I mean, was it planned to reopen the highway on June 9? Something is also rather awkward about the sentence. Maybe like: "As firefighters monitored the fire's spread, US 180 was closed on that night until further notice."
    • Revised sentence, removing the redundant clause
  • "drifted into communities such as Flagstaff" – are there also other reportings from other towns?
    • Yes, but there's enough of them that it's better to sum up, and Flagstaff works as a representative as it's the largest/most significant town in the area
  • "Again fanned" – "Further fanned"
    • Left it as "fanned" instead
  • "was being managed by 261 firefighters." – I'm unsure if "managed" is the proper verb for this sentence. Also would just say "was managed"
    • Managed works as a verb here. I think "being managed" sounds smoother so I'm going to leave it
  • "because of a civilian drone flown over the fire." – "because a civilian drone flew over the fire"
    • Same as above I think the original is better
      • I still think it's still rather clunky and unnaturally worded.-- ZKang123 ( talk) 01:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • " Four evacuated civilians suffered injuries related to the fire." – curious, was it said about where the civilians from? Like are they residents or rangers?
    • The report doesn't say
  • "said in a statement that the closure" – "in a statement" is unnecessary
    • Trimmed
  • "because of the potential for landslides" – "due to risks of landslides"
    • Revised

The lead is rather short, though understandably the article is also short itself.

    • Expanded slightly including aftermath
  • "leftovers from a previous wildfire" – there's this mention in the lead, but where else in the body?
    • "Owing to the danger posed to firefighters by difficult terrain and leftover dead trees from the Pumpkin Fire in 2000"
  • Maybe I would also briefly mention the aftermath in the lead as well.
  • Is this fire also part of the general 2017 Arizona wildfires?
    • Yes

I think that's all for me.-- ZKang123 ( talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • ZKang123, responses above, let me know how you're feeling. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Made a few ces on the article itself. Happy to support. Also saluting to the late Vami.-- ZKang123 ( talk) 01:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review - pass

The sole image in the infobox is free-use, with alt-text. No other outstanding issues. Passed.-- ZKang123 ( talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Image re reply

Do you think File:Boundary Fire 2017 (34583638403).jpg should be PD? The author seems to have been an employee of the Forest Service when he took the photo, and seems to still be one today. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Eddie891

I will review this. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Having some trouble reviewing this at the moment... the loss of Vami hasn't really hit until now. I will circle back here, hopefully by the weekend. Eddie891 Talk Work
Take all the time you need. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • " This fire is part of the 2017 Arizona wildfires." I get the intention to link the wildfire season, but this feels awkward to me-- of course a wildfire in 2017 in Arizona was part of the 2017 Arizona wildfires. Could the link be placed in some other sentence?
  • This was added in a copyedit by another editor; I've moved it so the lead reads "The Boundary Fire was a 2017 wildfire in Arizona" instead
  • "Damage to the areas's foliage increased the risk of landslides for the next few years." In the article, you only establish this in the following year.
  • Tweaked
  • "Between The Boundary Fire was one" something doesn't flow quite right in this sentence, also T probably should be uncapitalized
  • Looks like that was a typo
  • " and was being managed by 261 firefighters" Do we generally describe fires as being 'managed' rather than 'fought'?
  • "block 30 percent of the fire's possible spread" is that what containment means? I thought it was just the percentage of the perimeter that had been stopped -- which isn't necessarily the same as the sentence in the article.
  • Yeah, I think Vami misread this source, I've revised this bit entirely
  • "Aerial firefighting assets were temporarily grounded on June 25 because a civilian drone flew over the fire" why would this have led to the grounding?
  • Risk of accidents. When you have some jackwagon flying his unregistered drone around inside your airspace, not coordinating with you and your assets, it causes a huge risk for collision. You see it at airports and stuff too, if you have a drone sighting at an airport, that airport is gonna lock down for a bit until the drone is gone.

That's a first pass here. Nothing crazy. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks Eddie, I've responded above. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Serial

Placeholder for review. ——Serial 20:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Serial Number 54129: Are you going to review this soon? — VAUGHAN J. ( TALK) 09:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Apologies for being so late. I'm not going to dig around for something to say artificially; the article is in fine enough condition to allow me to support. This is possible not just because of the consistent quality of Vami IV's work—and this is no exception—but because of the thorough reviews and commentary of his comrades now, including the shepherds who have gently, yet firmly, guided their scion towards its deserved promotion. Fine work has been done by all, but they should be singled out for particular respect and thanks for taking on an emotionally draining task with professionalism, promptitude and understanding. Thank you.
To look for trivia to change this late would be an insult to all, merely adjustment fetishism on my part. It would also be petty and against the spirit—fundamental to what we do—that, though we might sign it and our rights to it away every time we hit the 'publish' button, every article we write stays part of us, we individualize it, it contains a nucleus of our personality. That can never be removed. It distinguishes our work from AI and Chatbot GPt. They say 'perfect is the enemy of good'; it is also the enemy of human. While Vami IV wrote, as we all do, for 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit', he also wrote, as we all do, for the encyclopedia that immortalizes our contributions forever. We honour Vami IV, who is immortalised through his work, while we can—and should—tweak it to the best it can be, as Vami IV would want, Vami cannot and never will be edited out of his work.
Ave, Vami IV.

Nice article, bro. See you. ——Serial 12:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

A beautiful tribute to Vami. It's a terrible day for rain. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

NightWolf1223

Placeholder. I hope to get around to this by the weekend, ping me if I haven't. NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 02:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC) reply

My deepest appologies for not getting to this sooner. Vami's passing in adition to the fact that I have not had much time ment that this slipped of my radar. Overall, a well-written article. Just some nitpicks:
  • "Visibility along US 180 had improved enough": US 180 needs to be hyphenated.
    • That does not appear to be standard formatting for US roads
  • " After June 12, the winds abated" I would change to "winds had reduced"
    • I've revised it to avoid both phrasings because I don't like either
  • "the 2017 season; on July 4th": the semicolon should be changed to a period.
    • I don't think so, the clauses are related.

This is my first-ever time reviewing a FAC. Let me know if I made any mistakes. I may have more comments later. NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 15:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • NightWolf1223, I've replied, one change made but the others no. I've also reformatted your comments here into a bulleted list to make them easier to respond to. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Support Thanks for your diligence in sheparding this article to FA. NW1223< Howl at me• My hunts> 18:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

UC

My path and Vami's never really crossed, but he is clearly a huge loss to the project. Thank you to PMC and Guerillero for taking this one on.

  • Suggest getting the year of the fire into the first sentence, per MOS:FIRST. I would also suggest getting in the words "United States" from a more WP:POPE angle.
  • This fire is part of the 2017 Arizona wildfires: not sure about the tense here, and I suspect there's a more elegant way to get it in (as we have in the Background) section
    • Yes and no, respectively. Adding United States feels clunky -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Let me think on this: I'll have a look at some other US FAs and see what they do. UndercoverClassicist T· C 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I would consider adding an inflation-adjusted equivalent to the dollar amounts per WP:ENDURE: as time goes on, people's instinct for how much money those represent is going to be increasingly out of whack.
  • human-induced climate change has caused them to increase in number, destructiveness, duration, and frequency: does the cited source give a sense of "since...", and if so, could we bring that in?
    • Just an 8-fold increase between 1985 and 2023, which isn't helpful -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
      • I'd stick that in: it's a much more concrete statement both of the scale and the timeframe of the problem. UndercoverClassicist T· C 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • In a report released April 2017: suggest making explicit that this was a month or so before the fire. Possibly an EngVar thing, but in April to me.
  • at about 2:02 pm (MT) : my understanding is that we don't usually specify the time zone when it's local time.
  • {{green|That night, fire managers closed US 180 until further notice}}: I would cut until further notice, as that notice was eventually given.
  • By June 9, the Boundary Fire had grown to 1,550 acres (630 ha) and was burning along US 180 and within both National Forests: perhaps I've missed something, but my understanding from the preceding paragraph was that it was always burning within both national forests?
    • My understanding of this map is that the fire was only in Coconino NF until the 9th. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
      • In that case, we need to adjust The Boundary Fire was sparked when lightning struck the northeast slope of Kendrick Peak within the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests at about 2:02 pm on June 1, 2017.. UndercoverClassicist T· C 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
        To me, "within the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests" modifies Kendrick Peak, not the place of ignition. However, I see your point -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Can we link and explain aerial ignition?
    It got merged, but the link should be helpful -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • soil burn severity: this might be a good candidate to rephrase in plain language.
  • Low wind speeds allowed ground crews and aerial assets to continue with controlled burns from June 15 to June 19: are all four citations really needed for this?
  • The next day brought light precipitation: I'd go with light rain as clearer (it was nearly 50 degrees C: clearly not snowing!)
  • to reopen the road to the public : would cut to the public as implied.
  • firefighters raised containment of the Boundary Fire to 42 percent: I'm not sure exactly what this means, nor, earlier, for allowed firefighters to block 30 percent of the fire's possible spread (does that mean it only affected 70% of the area it would have without human intervention?)
  • ($11.2 million, adjusted for inflation: needs a date.
  • three percent suffered total foliage mortality: could this be linked or explained?
  • Kaibab National Forest Supervisor stated that: I think we're missing a The or A at the start here.
  • In the bibliography, I think Williams-Grand Canyon News should have an endash, not a hyphen.
  • Newspaper titles are inconsistent between title case and sentence case.
  • Area burnt by the Boundary Fire according to the National Interagency Fire Center: I would put a comma before according to.

As usual, a parade of nitpicks: I hope at least some are useful. UndercoverClassicist T· C 18:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

They all sound reasonable to me. I will talk a look tomorrow. Thank you, UC, for your review -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

SC

Placeholder. - SchroCat ( talk) 13:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Not much from me; all minor stuff.

Progression
  • "Fanned by strong winds on June 10 and June 11": Just "June 10 and 11" would be fine
  • "secure fire lines": is a fire line the same as a fire break? If so, it would be better to call it that, given you've used and linked it above
  • "reopen the road to the public with": -> "reopen the road with"
  • "On June 23 the USFS": comma after 23 for consistency?
Aftermath
  • "Kaibab National Forest Supervisor": Needs an article (either definite or indefinite)
  • "at risk for landslides": is this correct in AmEng? (I'm more used to seeing "at risk of landslides").
    • Tbh I'm not sure (you know me and Engvars...). It doesn't read incorrectly to me but it's also not anything I'll fight about if it's wrong.

I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 10:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  • All the rest done, with just that one comment. Thanks, SchroCat. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Support All good from me. Thanks and so long Vami. - SchroCat ( talk) 22:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Source review

Spot-check upon request. Is it correct that the name of the national forest here is used as a publisher name? The Arizona Daily Sun seems to be sometimes accessed via Newspapers.com and sometimes marked with a closed access thingy. One or two articles here may be useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Premeditated Chaos, Guerillero, can you check this pls? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Yes, I am working on it -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Timberlake et al. 2020 looks like the only listed high-quality RS with some meat. It is an ethnography, so it is going to take a bit to parse -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Done. I added how Boundary changed how the Government Fire was managed. The rest of the five mentions are covered by other sources -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I guess this passes, then, with caveats about no spotcheck and not being familiar with the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:57, 5 March 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.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Boundary_Fire_(2017)/archive1&oldid=1212061760"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE