Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Blackwater fire of 1937/archive1: Difference between revisions
→Review by Quadell: from Oppose to Pending |
→Review by Quadell: support |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
::::::That works for me...consider it done....MONGO |
::::::That works for me...consider it done....MONGO |
||
====Review by Quadell==== |
====Review by Quadell==== |
||
{{collapse top|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. |
* '''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 |
*:Thanks...MONGO |
||
Line 113: | Line 116: | ||
*: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 |
*: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 |
||
<s>'''Oppose'''.</s> |
<s>'''Oppose'''.</s> 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. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 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 |
: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.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 16:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
: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.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 16:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
Line 121: | Line 124: | ||
:::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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackwater_fire_of_1937&diff=569154461&oldid=568836216 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...--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 00:56, 19 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blackwater_fire_of_1937&diff=569154461&oldid=568836216 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...--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 00:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::Thanks, I'll go over it all in the next day or two. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 12:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC) |
::::Thanks, I'll go over it all in the next day or two. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 12:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
* 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. |
|||
'''Support'''. This article is worthy of being featured. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 18:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:58, 19 August 2013
Blackwater fire of 1937 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- 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 [1]...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 1957for 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 deathswereoccurred on the west slopes of Clayton Mountain."- Done...MONGO
"... which also had dead limbswhichextendeding 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 thefiresite 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
- 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)
Review by Quadell
Resolved issues
|
---|
|
- 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.
Support. This article is worthy of being featured. – Quadell (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)