Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blackwater fire of 1937/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 Ian Rose 10:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Blackwater fire of 1937

Blackwater fire of 1937 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Blackwater fire of 1937/archive1

Nominator(s): MONGO 03:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Fairly new article that has had a DYK entry and a just recently completed a comprehensive Peer Review here. This forest fire was small but deadly, resulting in one of the worst losses of firefighters in U.S. history. I have searched for all the information I could find to make it as comprehensive as possible and I'm looking for community feedback to bring the article to featured level. Thanks! MONGO 03:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Parutakupiu

• August 18 (lead) vs. August 21 (infobox)?

  Was debating this since the fire started on the 18th but the fatalities were on the 21st...but changed to 18th...MONGO

Clearly, the date should be that of the fire start. A possible end date could be August 24–31 since it's believed that the fire was suppressed completely somewhere in that week, no? Parutakupiu (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Add United States after Cody, Wyoming. Do the same in the infobox (replacing "U.S.")

  Done...MONGO

• I don't like the coordinates being show at the top of the page and simultaneously in the infobox. I'd leave it only in the infobox, since there it is clearly contextualized as the site where the fire occurred.

  Done...MONGO

• 6 percent → six percent

  MOSNUM...Percentages are usually written with figures..see [2]...MONGO

You're right, I didn't check that. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• "... with one result being the development..." → "... one of them being the development..."

  Good idea...adopted...MONGO

• "... were developed in 1957 for firefighters to use when combating fires." It's an expected use for a standard firefighting guide.

  I was trying to make it clear that the handbook was for use in the field...I'll try and reword this. The guidelines are actually on a placard that was wallet sized so they are quickly referenced on the job. Give me a day or so to figure out the best way to phrase this.

  Have rephrased this and added a comment to make this clearer...MONGO

• (Note: take this merely as a suggestion) In terms of section structure, I think you could group them in three major sections: the first containing "Geography" and "Early 20th-century firefighting" (under a name which I can't come up with yet; don't know if "Background" would be appropriate...), the second comprising all the events from the beginning to the end of the fire ("Firefighter deployment", "Firefighters trapped by shift in firelines" and "Recovery") and the third would remain as the "Aftermath" section.
• "The firestorm deaths were occurred on the west slopes of Clayton Mountain."

  Done...MONGO

• "... which also had dead limbs which extendeding to the ground and providing a fuel ladder..."

  Done...MONGO

• There is an instance of "wildfire suppression" before the one that is actually linked.

  Done...nice catch...MONGO

• "embers" should link to Ember, not Embers.

  Done...MONGO

• Actually, "Recovery" as section title sounds a bit vague and unclear. It needs a title that encompasses not only the body recovery but also the fire supression.

  As part of your suggestion to restructure the sections, I'll look this over the next couple days...MONGO

• "... a limited number of firefighters at the fire site until August 31." – The fire had been suppressed at this point, right?

  The fire was controlled and contained but was still smoldering for a week after the fatalities...but added site as that makes it less ambiguous...MONGO

• "All those that died..." – The deceased firefighters?

  I reworded the sentences to make this clearer...MONGO

• Remove the {{clear}} template as it creates too much blank space. If it's because the Clayton Gulch image doesn't cross into the next section, you can move the memorial image to the left, before the second paragraph.

  Done...the section was expand since that template was placed there. Thanks...MONGO

• "... the fire wasn't contained enough..." – was not

  Automated Peer Review mentioned this and until you found it I couldn't see it. I read through the article several times and missed it each time. Now corrected...MONGO

A simple browser search sufficed. :) Parutakupiu (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• The second image needs a period at the end of the caption (full sentence).

  Done...good catch...MONGO

— Parutakupiu (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• I see you have renamed the "Aftermath" section. While you could keep the new title, I think that you could recover "Aftermath" as the name of a top-level section that would nest the new "Fire investigation and results" but also another sub-section that includes the last paragraph on the memorials (maybe named "Memorials"?), which don't fit so well with the preceding content. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  I have added new headings to better break up the article into sections...it looks more organized now but the headings may need words tweaked for clarity.....MONGO

• "Geographical setting and fauna" reads better than just a vague "Geography", but I would take out 'fauna' from it, since geography (at least, physical geography) tends to include that part.
• I don't think you need a separate sub-section to describe how the dry front changed the wind strength and direction, particularly when the heading is so long and reads as a full sentence, as "Dry front causes wind to change direction" does. Moreover, the pivotal firestorm that is fueled by those phenomena is only mentioned in the following sub-section. Hence, I think it would look better if you put this part back under "Firefighters trapped by firestorm".
• You nested "Rescue and body recovery" under "Aftermath" but I think it should belong in the previous section.

— Parutakupiu (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Did all the wise suggestions on headings you suggested here except the last one...still vacillating on it....MONGO

My rationale is that the rescue attempt was done while the fire was still active (although the firestorm had already passed). That's why I wouldn't put that section under "Aftermath". Parutakupiu (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That works for me...consider it done....MONGO

Support. After you addressed Quadell's very pertinent comments, I made another read and made some edits myself, but the article was already in shape for promotion. One last and tiny suggestion is to move the Clayton Gulch image a bit up (maybe at the start of the "Firefighters trapped by firestorm" section) so it's not packed into the memorial image. Good work. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all the time you've spent helping with some copyediting and for reviewing this FAC. I moved the Clayton Gulch image up one section and shifted the last image to left margin....seems to balance the article well that way.--MONGO 18:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by Quadell

Resolved issues

Image check: All images are legitimately free with accurate image description pages. I added a Commons category for them. The images are used appropriately, and the captions are informative. Thanks...MONGO The article commonly refers to "U.S. Routes 14/16/20" or "Highway 14/16/20". Is this the correct way to refer to the combined route? (Is there a standard way?) Not positive what the standard is...the routes follow the same road through that valley but possibly combine at either end of the gorge....one ends at Yellowstone at least. I standardized them to U.S. Routes as that's what they are....MONGO Great. Unless someone knows of a more standard way of referring to this, I'm content that the notation is internally consistent. – Quadell (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC) See also: Is there a reason why some deadly fires are listed here and others are not? What are the criteria? Also, why does one have a text description (with an em-dash) and the others do not? The section was longer but several other fires were mentioned in the article, linked and then removed. The descriptive additions were removed except for the one in Russia....I'm going to make adjustments here...MONGO Just reduced to one see also link....MONGO Since the lede should summarize material in the body of the article, there is usually no need to cite statements in the lede. Except for direct quotes or contentious statements, it's usually better to cite the statement where it appears in the body, but not in the lede. So the development of the smokejumper program should be described and sourced in the body, but not sourced in the lede. Other than that detail, the lede seems appropriate to me. I rarely do place refs in the lede and only did so thus time because someone at one point said that this matter seemed like a stretch. It's now removed...MONGO In my opinion, the entire date range should be in the infobox, not just the day it started. Also, the fire consumed 1,700 acres of forest, but the coordinates in the infobox indicate a specific region approximately 100 feet by 100 feet. Date ranges are ambiguous....while it's firm that the fire started on the 18th sources deviate on the full containment of the fire, with one saying the 24th yet another stating that firefighters remained at the fire site due to possible flareups until the 31st....so not sure what the span should be. I have to look at the map issue you mention...the coordinates should point to the origination point of the fire but that isn't clear so I thought I tried to put it about center where the fire burned....MONGO As for the date range, I'm not an expert on dash-issues, but shouldn't that be "18–24", rather than "18 - 24"? Speaking of which, your dashes in the references are inconsistent. (Seems like a ridiculously trivial issue, but FAC folks are always picky about it...) – Quadell (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC) The above are minor issues. But more importantly, there seem to be some problems with the sourcing. Several statements are not sourced at all (like the final sentences of several paragraphs). Sourcing is much improved. – Quadell (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC) In other cases, only a small amount of the factual content in the article is adequately covered in the sources. 8a sources three sentences, and the first sentence is supported, but the source does not mention portable water pumps, backpack pumps, firelines, shovels, pulaskis, etc. This specific situation has been thoroughly fixed. – Quadell (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC) For 10b, the dates are supported but the size estimates are not. Added a reference to support the rest of the sentence...MONGO Fixed. – Quadell (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC) 15a seems to support three sentences. The source covers wind-driven embers and backpack water pumps, but does not mention the estimates of 200 firefighters and 500 acres, for instance. Fixed. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC) 17a either covers one sentence (and the final sentence of the previous paragraph needs a source), or it covers both sentences. But either way, the source does not mention an 8th firefighter dying at the hospital, USFS or BPR employees... and it seems to indicate that 45 were led up (since 5 ran and 40 stayed). This has not been fixed, and is still an issue. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC) To amended this since it doesn't seem clear exactly how many firefighters Post led up the ridge, I simply added more than. It appears from the reference that 37 men stayed on the ridge, but I don't know if that includes Post and the other two managers in that total and that 5 ran off the ridge, so its still somewhere over 40 thereabouts....MONGO To be clear, many citations (1, 5, 8b and c and d, 10 a and c, 15 b and c) fully support the statements. I never encountered any plagiarism, and I don't think the article just makes anything up. But I do think someone needs to go through the entire article and carefully compare the statements made to the statements in the sources, to make sure that the claims can be checked. Anything not correctly sourced needs to be sourced or removed. I am not able to open the pdf files..well a few open but not all..so I either have to see whats up with my system or find new sources...if I can't use these sources, I'll have to pull the nomination. I added a notes section to help clarify things some...MONGO Showing connection timeout...will try to work on in next few days....--MONGO 23:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I didn't have any problems with any that I tried. A lot of them are .gov so maybe archive in commons? If you have a specific one let me know. --DHeyward (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Looks like it's fine now....will address Quadell'concerns over the next few days.--MONGO 15:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Working on more referencing and double checking for accuracy...trying to find more references rather than simply use the existing cites I have....MONGO Great. Let me know when you think it's ready for another look-over. – Quadell (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC) I've made some adjustments to the facts, rechecked and added sources and added a Notes section to clarify things that needed to be clarified but are not specific to the article....MONGO I have some more minor concerns. Repeated footnotes (such as citing reference [5] three times in a row at the end of the "Initial attack" section) are usually unnecessary and distracting. In most cases, the reader can assume that a reference footnote covers all statements that come before it, up until the most recent other footnote. There are exceptions: if a direct quote is given, or a particularly unexpected or controversial claim is made, it may be necessary to use the same footnote twice in a row. But in most cases, it crowds the text without providing any new information to the reader. You should cut all instances of this where it isn't needed. Due to the span of information that is gleamed from some sources, I still have some of the references in series, but tried to not have one after every single sentence....MONGO I like the new footnoting, but I think footnotes [a] and [b] should be combined. Done....MONGO I think you mean "The Blackwater fire killed more wildland firefighters than any other in the U.S. in the 103 years... Done....MONGO This could just reflect my ignorance of wildfire terminology, but... is "Initial attack" correct? Is that a technical term, or are you saying that the firefighters were metaphorically "attacking" the fire? If it's the latter, it seems like there should be a more formal way of putting it. Initial Attack is the correct terminology....it could be renamed....MONGO I renamed the section...MONGO Similar to previous issues, footnote 25 ("Deadliest incidents...") supports the "tied for fourth" claim, but does not support the info about injuries or place of death. So the sentence ending "...and other complications" is still unsourced. Once a source is added for that sentence, it would be better to move reference [25] to the end of the paragraph, since footnote [d] uses the same source. A source could be added....MONGO Added reference and adjusted placement of reference mentioned..I left the same reference for the footnote so it can be checked if anyone looks at the footnote....MONGO Footnote 11 references a nine-page PDF, but does not provide page numbers. From what I can tell, the source supports the claim that standardization was developed in 1951, but not that it was in response to the Mann Gulch fire, and it also does not support the previous sentence describing why the 10 am rule existed. This appears to be another case where a source was added to a section due to the fact that some of the claims are supported, without taking care that all of the statements are supported. I broke the pdf into several different refs to allow for page notation. removed the issue about the Mann Gulch Fire being part of the decison making which led to the policy changes as I couldn't easily cite that. Added two references regarding the 10 am rule...my wording is a summary of a long debate on this matter...MONGO Page numbers added...MONGO Better sourcing could be done here....I've tried to find live versions of information so that a click of the mouse takes one directly to the info as much as feasible....adding the page of a pdf is not hard to do if necessary. I think my effort to provide direct links via urls to journals far exceeds useless book pages that have no links and makes it almost impossible for some reviewers to know for sure if the information is accurate or plagerized or whatever....I've written 10 featured articles and this one is the toughest to source since it was a minor historical event and happened 75 years ago....MONGO Oppose. Although the prose is very good and I am confident the article is accurate, I still find that the sourcing is not up to FAC-standards. The nominator has made dramatic improvements to the sourcing and has also adding information and improved the article organization, and this should be commended, but it has not fixed all the problems identified. Checking for sourcing issues -- such as looking through long, unsearchable PDFs to see if all statements are supported -- is very labor intensive and frankly not much fun, and I'm personally not interested in going through a repeated cycle of thorough check, nominator improvements, thorough check, etc. If someone spends the time to thoroughly fix all sourcing concerns, and can be 100% confident that all issues are resolved, then I'll re-examine if it's renominated in the future. But out of respect for the efforts of reviewers, the sourcing of statements needs to be meticulous before nominating, or else thoroughly fixed on the first go-around, in my opinion. – Quadell (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC) I did not make it clear that I FELT that I was done with the sourcing issues you had mentioned...I have had a busy week at work ans planned on doing the full cleanup over the weekend. All I have done since you started your review are mainly minor adjustments so that the main effort for the weekend would have been to fully address your suggestions.....MONGO As a footnote to my last comment....you initiated your review 4 days ago...I've done what I could in my limited time during the week.--MONGO 16:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Oh, great. Did I misunderstand your comment? In that case, I suppose I jumped the gun. That's frustrating... I want to be fair. You have not been dragging your feet, but have been responding quickly to issues. Once you're sure the sourcing is thorough, let me know, and I'll give it one more go-over. – Quadell (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Just been only able to access my desktop one evening in the last 4....I should have been clear about what stage I felt I was at as far as sourcing. This isn't an easy task due to the only modest level of referencing available and I confess that due to my first hand knowledge and background in firefighting, I may assume that others have my level of experience and therefore fail to provide adequate sourcing for some issues....you can assume that by Monday morning I will have done all I can to get the article statement backed up by as good and as detailed referencing as is available.--MONGO 18:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC) I believe I have addressed your concerns...many references were split up to incorporate page numbers, some url's were added to the book references to help double check facts, some wording was tweaked to more accurately reflect what the sources claim and several more sources were added to better backup the information...a snapshot of the diffs covering the period since you last looked at the article is here...I've double even triple checked the statements in the article against what the sources provide and it appears consistant. Ran citation bot to clean up dashes and url issues...--MONGO 00:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I'll go over it all in the next day or two. – Quadell (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• The sourcing is now complete and reliable. Well done. In addition, the prose is very good and the lede is excellent. I've reread the entire article and looked through the sourcing, and can find no omissions or unclear bits.

• In "Aftermath", you mention changes to firefighting procedures in 1957 and 1987. Do you think it's worth mentioning that the 10 AM rule was effectively done away with in 1977? (That's according to your "EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT POLICY" link.) It's not strictly speaking a part of this fire's aftermath, but the 10 AM rule was pretty disastrous here. This is not a requirement, but just a possibility to consider.

  That is an excellent point that I will notate in the article...I didn't want to stray too far off the subject of the fire itself aside from setting up the issues of what it was like to combat fires back then but this issue does need to be addressed.....MONGO

Support. This article is worthy of being featured. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your exceptionally detailed review.--MONGO 19:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support now....Comments from PSky

Images this is my only concern here. All the images have the same issue: File:Blackwater fire 1.jpg, File:Blackwater firefighters 1937.jpg, File:Blackwater fire 2.jpg, File:Clayton Gluch 1937.jpg, File:Blackwater fire memorial.jpg. They each have two issues: the licenses should be "PD-USGov-USDA-FS", not USDA because it's more specific and they all say they are Forest Service and they are all dated 2013, Upload dates I guess, but Template:Information says it should be the original creation date not some other date. PumpkinSky talk 00:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I added dates as best I could...two are only the year. The dedication ceremony was on the second anniversary of the deaths. Added the license you pointed out...thank you!--MONGO 23:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Added my support PumpkinSky talk 14:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to the discussion.--MONGO 15:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.