Talk:Wildfire/Archive 1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Mrbell in topic Comments by Cryptic C62
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Firestorms in war
Should the Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II be mentioned? To my mind (Eurocentric I admit) it's one of the most famous firestorms in history. Man-made and urban firestorms are not mentioned. The Great Fire of London is another example of an urban firestorm. 194.74.200.66 09:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Why would this be mentioned on the "wildfire" page? There's a separate page for "firestorm".--76.102.179.122 06:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Top
I wish someone could restore the other picture to the article. Certainly we could have more than one picture. Rmhermen 14:23, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)
I have a problem with the caption -- there's no way that this picture was taken from the International Space Station. I know omg, i need this website of wildfires for a project and i need pictures, not fake one.....kkoooll
Fire in San Bernadino Mountains
66.153.56.194 02:05, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It says that's where it was taken from here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=11805 - Evil saltine 06:42, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I e-mailed the NASA contact on that web page and a human confirmed it was taken from the ISS. Tempshill 15:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't the listing of famous wildfires be moved to the List of historic fires?Rsduhamel 07:28, 23 September 2004 (UTC)
Nice PD photo of an Italian helicopter filling up its water bag from a pool here.
Too Many Images
In my totally unconsidered opinion, there are a few too many images at the top of this page, resulting in the text being seriously warped. Can't we spread them out a bit? --Orborde 02:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Well, there are quite a few large images and not that much text. However, I do agree with your diagnosis, so if you can find a better arrangement, go ahead. Change image sizes as well if need be. Rl 07:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- I spent a little bit of time cleaning up the article and shrinking images. It should not appear to be as crowded as it was before.
ha to km² to acres
Please be careful with units in the text. For instance, in Portugal, all of them were wrong. I just updated it. Hope everything's OK now. Sorry for my bad english...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.92.68 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Problems with Info
In the first paragraph, you say that large forest fires are caused by "drought and prevention of small fires". How is that possible? Shouldn't you stop the small fires from getting big?
- The idea is that if small forest fires occur regularly, then they clean out all the fuel. If you put them out for years on end, all fuel accumulates for 20 years or more. Then when you do have a fire, it gets really huge really fast. -Lommer | talk 18:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- The article needs a much better explanation, something like http://www.alternet.org/story/17066/ or a link to that. --Espoo 06:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Minor rewording
"The risk of major wildfires can be reduced partly by a reduction of the amount of fuel present."
The bolded word read as achieved beforehand.. was that intentional or a minor mistake? Doesn't logically follow that one would want to achieve the risk of a major wildfire, much less so by reducing fuel. 124.178.193.129 16:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Merge from Taiga#fire suppression
The info at Taiga#fire suppression is rather redundant, off-topic as stated, and more fitting here. It should be merged to Wildfire#fire suppression. -- P199 18:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Some at least of it refers to the particular fire cycles fround in taiga, and should be retained there, but other parts would be better moved here - MPF 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, it should be merged. Prospect77 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, should be merged. --Romanski 10:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- The fire suppression section here is pretty long already. Could it be a separate article, with the appropriate parts from the taiga article, and maybe some more specifics about suppression in other biomes?Lisamh 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. It stands to reason that the fire suppression section of the wildfire article is going to be pretty long; that's really the biggest thing worth talking about in terms of wildfires. It definitely strays way off topic in the taiga article. Kafziel Talk 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. Discussion of fire suppression is almost half of the taiga overview article, which is disproportionate - the content is more specific and specialised, so fits better in Wildfire. Martin 11:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the detailed discussion on Fire Suppression from Taiga overview to "Success of fire suppression in northern forests" cross-referenced here. Content is on a slightly different theme to this article. Should they still be merged? Martin 12:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Total Land Area, Underground Fire, Conversion
Is it possible to put the percentage number of burning forest area compared to total LAND area of the country? In archipelago like Indonesia and Philippines, most of the country are sea/water, not land. There is a continous underground fire / smouldering fire (since 1997) on peat that burn without any oxygen supply deep under Kalimantan and East Sumatra forest. This fire will re-surface every dry season. Is this a new kind of forest fire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.145.9 (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
There is something funny about France data: 300 km², 12,140 acres, I use online calculator: 300 square kilometer = 74131 acres. 12 140 acre = 49 square kilometer Which one is the correct number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.145.7 (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the data should be 52140 acres === 211 square km. 0.04% of France is approx. 219 square km. Is this the correct data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.73.116.208 (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In some countries, Acres is not popular/unrecognized. Is it better to use square mile? (1 square mile=2.59 square km). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.145.9 (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Cant understand sentence
Under "BEHAVIOR", the first sentence as printed makes no sense: When the water reserves in the soil, the soil are between 100 percent and 30percent. (Halesw 02:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC))
- Neither can I - if someone knows what is trying to be said (and has a citation for any statistics introduced) feel free to add it back. Richard001 08:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Wildfire simulation and modeling
Any interest, would it be better as a section here or in a separate page? A little math and lots of journal references. Jmath666 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Biased POV
This sentence is a personal point of view:
- "However, this concept has been misapplied in a "one-size-fits-all" application to other ecosystems such as California chaparral."
If there are criticisms of a government policy, we should state factually that "there are criticisms", and cite an external publication where the criticism was made. Mtford 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
what happened to the stuff on fire safety I added? it could save lives! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.210.156 (talk) 05:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Statistics for Australia & New Zealand
I know that in Australia and New Zealand there are massive forest fires every year, however in the statistics section there are no available statistics for those countries. Does anybody have a source from which information could be added to this page?Prince.timotheus 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- here are a few sources:
Australian bureau of statistics (official federal govt. stats): http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/46d1bc47ac9d0c7bca256c470025ff87/ccb3f2e90ba779d3ca256dea00053977!OpenDocument
state of Victoria "public land in Victoria over the last 70 years": http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenfoe.nsf/childdocs/-D79E4FB0C437E1B6CA256DA60008B9EF?open David Woodward 15:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I calculated the correct values from that source. They are as follows: "Australia (2002-2003): 212,402 km², 52,485,790 acres, i.e. 2.75% of the territory; 7 deaths." If anyone feels they would like to include it into the article feel free. Prince.timotheus 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Origins
It would be nice to have a section on the origins of wildfires. Are they caused by lightening or are the human made fires growing out of control? I don't have any data myself though User:nielsle —Preceding comment was added at 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Climate Change Link
I've added a citation to a newspaper article reporting on a study of the link between climate change and forest fires. The phrase needed to be substantiated; I believe this should suffice, if not, please revert or find a new source. Counters 13:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I the consensus?
I think the list is too long. I think I'll move/update List of wildfires with all the info here and delete the rest, only keeping those with the most deaths, area, etc. MrBell (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please see Optigan13's suggestions regarding this page. MrBell (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the links section, and if anyone is interested in some interesting wildfire links, I moved those from Wildfire to User:MrBell/sandbox (per Optigan13's suggestions). I will dig through those and add appropriate content with refs to Wildfire as needed. MrBell (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I propose moving most of the Suppression section to wildland fire suppression, aerial firefighting, or other appropriate pages. MrBell (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the links section, and if anyone is interested in some interesting wildfire links, I moved those from Wildfire to User:MrBell/sandbox (per Optigan13's suggestions). I will dig through those and add appropriate content with refs to Wildfire as needed. MrBell (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Peer review suggestions
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
- If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
- Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
- You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 28 km, use 28 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 28 km.[?] - Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.[?]
- Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), colonize (A) (British: colonise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), ization (A) (British: isation), modeling (A) (British: modelling), cosy (B) (American: cozy), mould (B) (American: mold), program (A) (British: programme).
- As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, MrBell (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
References
This is a list of references that existed before there were in-line citations. I have checked and incorporated those with urls. Here is the crude list:
- Baumgardner, D., et al. 2003. Warming of the Arctic lower stratosphere by light absorbing particle. American Geophysical Union fall meeting. Dec. 8-12. San Francisco.
- Billing, P., 1983. Otways Fire No. 22 - 1982/83 Aspects of fire behaviour, Fire Research Branch Report No. 20. Dept. of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria, Australia. pp. 5-6, (PDF - 1.8 Mb). [1]
- Bridge, S.R.J, K. Miyanishi and E.A. Johnson. 2005. A Critical Evaluation of Fire Suppression Effects in the Boreal Forest of Ontario. Forest Science 51:41-50.
- Bravo, A. H., E. R. Sosa, A. P. Sánchez, P. M. Jaimes and R. M. I. Saavedra. 2002. Impact of wildfires on the air quality of Mexico City, 1992–1999. Environmental Pollution, 117(2: 243-253.
- Douglass, R. 2008. Quantification of the health impacts associated with fine particulate matter due to wildfires. M.S. Thesis. Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences of Duke University. 45p.
- Fromm, M., et al. 2003. Stratospheric smoke down under: Injection from Australian fires/convection in January 2003. American Geophysical Union fall meeting. Dec. 8-12. San Francisco.
- Halsey, R.W. 2008. Fire, Chaparral, and Survival in Southern California. Sunbelt Publications, San Diego, CA. 323 p.
- Johnson, E.A. and Miyanishi K. (Eds.) 2001. Forest Fires - Behavior and Ecological Effects. Academic Press, San Diego.
- Johnson, E.A., K. Miyanishi, and S.R.J. Bridge. 2001. Wildfire regime in the boreal forest and the idea of suppression and fuel buildup. Conserv. Biol. 15:1554-1557.
- Keeley, J.E. 1995. "Future of California floristics and systematics: wildfire threats to the California flora". Madrono 42: 175-179.
- Keeley, J.E. and C.J. Fotheringham. 1997. "Trace gas emission in smoke-induced germination". Science 276: 1248-1250.
- Li, C. 2000. Fire regimes and their simulation with reference to Ontario. P. 115-140 in Ecology of a managed terrestrial landscape: patterns and processes of forest landscapes in Ontario, Perera, A.H., D.L. Euler, and I.D. Thompson (eds.). UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.
- Makarim, Nabiel, et al. BAPEDAL and CIDA-CEPI. 1998. Assessment of 1997 Land and Forest Fires in Indonesia: National Coordination. From "International Forest Fire News", #18, page 4-12, January 1998.
- Martell, D.L. 1994. The impact of fire on timber supply in Ontario. For. Chron. 70:164-173.
- Martell, D.L. 1996. Old-growth, disturbance, and ecosystem management: commentary. Can. J. Bot. 74:509-510.
- Miyanishi, K., and E.A. Johnson. 2001. A re-examination of the effects of fire suppression in the boreal forest. Can. J. For. Res. 31:1462-1466.
- Miyanishi, K., S.R.J. Bridge, AND E.A. Johnson. 2002. Wildfire regime in the boreal forest. Conserv. Biol. 16:1177-1178.
- Shea, Neil: "Under fire". National Geographic Magazine July 2008 link
- Pyne, S.J. et al. 1996. Introduction to Wildland Fire. Wiley, New York.
- Stocks, B.J. 1991. The extent and impact of forest fires in northern circumpolar countries. P. 197-202 in Global biomass burning: atmospheric, climatic and biospheric implications, Levine, J.S. (ed.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
- Wang, P.K. 2003. The physical mechanism of injecting biomass burning materials into the stratosphere during fire-induced thunderstorms. American Geophysical Union fall meeting. Dec. 8-12. San Francisco.
- Ward, P.C., and W. Mawdsley. 2000. Fire management in the boreal forests of Canada. P. 274-288 In Fire, climate change, and carbon cycling in the boreal forest, Kasischke, E.S., and B.J. Stocks (eds.). Springer, New York, NY.
- Ward, P.C., and A.G. Tithecott. 1993. The impact of fire management on the boreal landscape of Ontario. Aviation, Flood and Fire Management Branch Publication No. 305. Ont. Min. Nat. Res., Queens Printer for Ontario, Toronto, ON.
- Ward, P. C., Tithecott, A. G., & Wotton, B. M. 2001. Reply—a re-examination of the effects of fire suppression in the boreal forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 31(8), 1467.
- Weber, M.G., and B.J. Stocks. 1998. Forest fires in the boreal forests of Canada. P. 215-233 in Large forest fires, Moreno, J.M. (ed.). Backhuys Publishers, Leiden.
- Zedler, P.H. 1995. Fire frequency in southern California shrublands: biological effects and management options, pp. 101-112 in J.E. Keeley and T. Scott (eds.), Brushfires in California wildlands: ecology and resource management. International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield, Wash. MrBell (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Canadian Forest Fire Management Agencies
Forest fire management is under provincial/territorial jurisdiction (with the exception of the Yukon Territory) with operational fire-control services and coordination of resource-sharing provided by the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre. Parks Canada is responsible for forest fire management in our National Parks. Specific information on fire conditions can be obtained from the appropriate agency listed below. CIFFC is also is the principal source for the statistics used in preparing the weekly National Forest Fire Situation Report. [1]
Warning and monitoring
- The British Columbia Ministry of Forests-Protection Branch
- Global Fire Monitoring Center (GFMC)
- European Forest Fire Information System
- GeoMAC Wildfire information and internet map viewer of current wildfires in the United States
- Locations of large fires in the US and Canada based upon MODIS satellite imagery
- Volunteer Wildfire Services, Cape Town, South Africa
- BWCA Fire Restrictions, Fire Danger, and Forest Fire Updates
Wildfire Detection
Research
- Fire and Environmental Research Applications Team
- FEMA report on the East Bay Hills Fire
- Fire in the East, Fire in the West An overview of conditions and agents of wildfire in different U.S. ecosystems
Statistics
This section was moved from article here. I will incorporate the data into the article as prose.
Every year, the burnt surface represents about:
- France: 52,140 acres (211 km2), 0.04% of the territory
- Portugal:
- 1991 : 449,732 acres (1,820 km2), i.e. 2% of the territory
- 2003 : 1,050,000 acres (4,250 km2), i.e. 4.6% of the territory; 20 deaths ;
- 2004 : 297,836 acres (1,210 km2), i.e. 1.3% of the territory
- 2005 : 707,668 acres (2,860 km2), i.e. 3.1% of the territory; 17 deaths;
- 2006 : 178,904 acres (724 km2), i.e. 0.8% of the territory; 10 deaths;
- United States: 4,300,000 acres (17,400 km2) i.e. 0.18% of the territory
- Indonesia. Sources: before 1997 from Indonesian Environmental Impact Management Agency (BAPEDAL) and Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) - Collaborative Environmental Project in Indonesia (CEPI). 1997/1998 from Asian Development Bank (ADB). From 1999: Indonesian Ministry of Forestry.
- 1982 and 1983: 36,000 km² (8.9 million acres)
- 1987: 492 km² (121,880 acres).
- 1991: 1,189 km² (293,761 acres).
- 1994: 1,618 km² (399,812 acres).
- 1997 and 1998: 97,550 km² (24.1 million acres) - from ADB.
- 1999: 440.90 km² (108,949 acres).
- 2000: 82.55 km² ( 20,399 acres).
- 2001: 143.51 km² ( 35,462 acres).
- 2002: 366.91 km² ( 90,665 acres).
- 2003: 37.45 km² ( 9,254 acres).
- 2004: 139.91 km² ( 34,573 acres).
- 2005: 133.28 km² ( 32,934 acres).
Not sure where to put this pic
Could use it in Wildland fire suppression, but I think it fits better under a prevention section of some kind. However, I think the Smokey Bear pic is a better fit for Wildfire#Prevention. If that section is expanded, maybe the red flag pic could be added. MrBell (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this is good info
"During the Vietnam War, approximately 12% of South Vietnam’s forest cover was converted to areas dominated by extremely flammable grasses, e.g. Imperata cylindrica and the exotic species Pennisetum polystachyon, through use of herbicides, explosives, mechanical land clearing and burning operations. Fires occur in these locations almost annually. (Karki, 4) MrBell (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Note on Forest Service pictures
Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/February#USDA Forest Service technical report MrBell (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Unreferenced stmts
Moved from the Detection section. I haven't found anything that discusses the following, but decided to move it here for now (existed before I started editing this article):
"Although a relatively new approach, local sensor networks are able to accurately penetrate thick vegetation and guarantee early detection without false alarms, as well as detecting crawling wildfires. The main limitation of this technology is its high cost which at this time limits its application to small areas.
"...Brightness and color change detection as well as night vision capabilities may be incorporated into sensor arrays. Large towers are an ideal approach to wider areas as they have the advantage of "looking higher", allowing them to locate a wildfire of any size. However, fixed towers are "blind" to obstacles like thick vegetation and can miss crawling wildfires. In addition, high winds, including those during days of high fire danger, can cause frequent false alarms." MrBell (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Table in Detection Section
The table once was just some data and a few links (see [2]). I haven't been able to verify all the data, so I'll move the table here for now.
| METHOD | SIZE AREA | RISK LEVEL | DETECTION WITHIN |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aero/satellite | Very large (>250,000 acres) | Low | 12 ha (30 acres) |
| Infrared/smoke scanners | Medium (10,000-250,000 acres) | Medium | 0.01 ha (1,100 ft²) at 20 km (12 mi)[2] |
| Unaided lookout | Medium (10,000-250,000 acres) | Medium | 22 m² (240 ft²) at 13 km (8 mi) and 44 m² (480 ft²) at 25 km (16 mi)[2] |
| Local sensor network | Small (<10,000 acres) | High | 150 sq ft (15 m²) |
- ^ http://nofc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/fire/links_e.php
- ^ a b Evaluation of three wildfire smoke detection systems, 5
- "Evaluation of three wildfire smoke detection systems" (PDF), Advantage, 5 (4), Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada (FERIC), June 2004, retrieved 2009-01-13
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBell (talk • contribs) 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Text not included
- Nine out of ten wildfires are reportedly caused by some human interaction.<ref>''National Wildfire Coordinating Group Communicator's Guide For Wildland Fire Management'', 4.</ref> (9 out of 10 where, in the US, world?)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBell (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Humans caused 55% of Canada's fires [3]
Wildfires in the United States are responsible for "about 95% of the total acres burned and close to 85% of all suppression costs," as suppression efforts and damage caused can exceed billions of US dollars annually.[1][2][3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBell (talk • contribs) 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Copy edit
Heya. I'm going to give this article a thorough copy edit to the best of my abilities. I attempted to review it for FAC but a missing verb and a split infinitive stopped me short. If I change the meaning of any sentences or compromise accuracy, feel free to revert an edit or adjust the wording to reflect what it actually means. I'm going to concentrate on grammatical accuracy and brilliance. I'll let you know when I think I'm done. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Who is Billing (ref 18)? I don't see his name in any sources.
- Fixed
Is a link down to the fuel type section sufficient?Wording changed; better?
- There's a groundfire in Centralia, Pennsylvania that has been burning for decades, FYI. Might be interesting to add.
- Added to ground fire with wikilinks.
- Ladder fires: you're describing typical fuel for fires in the Fuel type section, yet invasive species is listed. This is an odd thing to include in the list since fire eats anything flammable in the fire's path regardless of native or invasive species.
- I'm not sure I understand. I mean to include it because invasive species (e.g. Kudzu) can act as ladder fuels.
- Current text reads: Ladder fires consume material between low-level vegetation and tree canopies, such as small trees, downed logs, vines, and invasive plants but to highlight invasive plants without explaining ones like kudzu or old world climbing fern can act as fire ladders is confusing. I suggest ending the sentence at vines and starting a new one about invasive species. Without the distinction it seems as if ladder fires consume only small trees, downed logs, vines, and invasive plants, which begs the question of why invasive plants? As if the fire can differentiate between exotic species and native ones. I understand your point--I wrote Restoration of the Everglades in which old world climbing fern is specifically mentioned--but I anticipate readers without intimate knowledge of fire ladders won't be able to understand the point. --Moni3 (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Changed; better?
- Current text reads: Ladder fires consume material between low-level vegetation and tree canopies, such as small trees, downed logs, vines, and invasive plants but to highlight invasive plants without explaining ones like kudzu or old world climbing fern can act as fire ladders is confusing. I suggest ending the sentence at vines and starting a new one about invasive species. Without the distinction it seems as if ladder fires consume only small trees, downed logs, vines, and invasive plants, which begs the question of why invasive plants? As if the fire can differentiate between exotic species and native ones. I understand your point--I wrote Restoration of the Everglades in which old world climbing fern is specifically mentioned--but I anticipate readers without intimate knowledge of fire ladders won't be able to understand the point. --Moni3 (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- earlier snowmelt and associated warming is this Global warming? If so, it should be stated.
- Quote from that reference: "Whether the changes observed in western hydroclimate and wildfire are the result of greenhouse gas–induced global warming or only an unusual natural fluctuation is beyond the scope of this work." How should this be stated so global warming, though inferred, isn't assumed?
- There is a transcluded template in the history section that I've never seen in an FA before. Actually, I don't recall ever seeing a template with prose in it... At any rate, it bolds the word wildfire, which is unnecessary and distracting.
I wasn't the author of the last two. I'll have to investigate the reasons for the adds.The template seems to have been added to maintain consistency between Wildfire, Fire, and Fossil record of fire. Should this be removed and typed verbatim instead?
Watch for:
- The intermittent citing in the middle of sentences throughout the article, quite frankly, drives me nuts. It interrupts the flow of sentences, and I suggest adopting a citing method that will help readers through the article with as few interruptions as possible.
- Done, I think.
- Also - see WP:Overlinking as a reference about linking words that are common in English and repeated linking of the same words in the article. I think I delinked smoldering three times.
- I've removed quite a number of wikilinks to concepts that a typical adult should understand, IMO. How does it look now?
- Pay attention also to the way you're using quotes. Quotes are most appropriate when expressing the opinions of recognized experts in their fields. Instead of quoting from a paper or brochure that does not seem to be authoritative when referring to the topic as a whole--such as the Florida Alliance for Safe Homes--paraphrase. When Professor X, Master of Wildfires states his opinion, that can be quoted with an explanation that Professor X, Master of Wildfires said it.
- I've removed some quotations and summarized their content, but there remain three:
- "evils were caused by fires"...; in Human Involvement
- "the most effective treatment for reducing a fire’s rate of spread, fireline intensity, flame length, and heat per unit of area..."; in Prevention
- "Note the changes in vertical arrangement and horizontal continuity in forest stand structure"; in the three-panel image at the end of Prevention
- I can't figure out how to reduce these to simpler ideas without diluting their meaning. Any suggestions?
I got through the Human history section, which is where I am going to stop. I would like to assist you in improving the article, but I have many concerns about the material, the least of which are the copy edits I made of multiple style errors. Articles should be ready to go, so to speak, when they are nominated for FA. I would like to know if the History section summarizes human involvement in wildfire; two small paragraphs does not seem to be a thorough representation of people's association to uncontrolled conflagrations. The uncited quote in the Human history section also--we're coming up on compounded problems that are getting more difficult to untangle.
I'm placing the article on watch to participate in the discussion. SandyGeorgia and Karanacs encourage reviewers to support or oppose an FAC instead of simply make comments. Right now, I'm going to oppose the article and link to this section. If you think you can fix my objections within a few days' time, I will reconsider, but I recommend removing the nomination by way of a message on Sandy's talk page, working on the prose and content and re-nominating in a few weeks' time. --Moni3 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- A note was left for SandyGeorgia. Thanks for the input so far, you've been very helpful. MrBell (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Comprehensiveness: concepts that are introduced in the article need to be explained when they are first mentioned. Links are supposed to be useful (and quite frankly, to promote ADD, stream of consciousness clicking, and degrees of separation games) to readers to go beyond and find out more about a topic, but links should not be used in place of explanations per the link to crown fire. Using a term, linking to a section farther down in the article while not explaining what the concept is when first linked halts comprehension of the point you're trying to make. Thoughts should be fluid and whole. Readers should be able to get through--and want to get through--the entire article and have a thorough understanding of the topic, then start clicking on things they would like to know more about that are more tangentially related. Frequent interruptions and forcing the reader to click on other articles or farther down in this one helps them with that ADD thing until they're 10 articles away and forgot what they were reading when they started. --Moni3 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Text was changed; is it understandable now?
Ok it looks like it's going good so far. What do you think of switching the Ecology and Human history sections? It seems a logical connection from history to Prevention and Suppression because both these issues deal with human interaction with fire, where Ecology does not necessarily connect with people. I will copy edit the Prevention and Suppression sections within the next couple days. My biggest reservations are with the Human history section. Frankly, I have no idea of the history people have with wildfires, but it seems like one paragraph is not enough to discuss it. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Work has been done on the Human history section; how does it look now?
Round 2
Watch for:
- Consistency of measurements, making sure the metric system is first (which is common in global topics) and it is either abbreviated or spelled out each time. See uncontrolled disasters that burn through 0.4 to 400 square kilometres (100 to 100,000 acres) or more, they can be as small as 0.25 acres (0.0010 km2) or less
- Done.
- A profusion of parenthetical statements that can easily be assimilated into prose. I have fixed many of these. Some of them may be able to be expanded by a couple sentences to give your readers a full understanding of the concepts within. Parenthetical statements in encyclopedia writing should be kept to a bare minimum.
- There remain these quotations:
- ..."clear or severely damage 55 per cent of the Amazon rainforest by the year 2030" according to Rebecca Lindsay of NASA's Earth Observatory
- ...Phillip II on the grounds that "evils were caused by fires"
- ...controlled burns are reportedly "the most effective treatment for reducing a fire’s rate of spread, fireline intensity, flame length, and heat per unit of area." (debatable; others may argue for other techniques)
- I hesitate diluting the meaning or adding unnecessary words. Any suggestions?
- If Rebecca Lindsay is an expert in her field, then leave the quotation in. Just make sure it's attributed in the prose to Linsday as an expert at NASA.
- If Phillip II used language such as "evils" that reflected national policy, then leave it as a quote.
- The author stated "on the grounds that evils were caused by fires". What is "evils" (a harmful effect)?
- Similar to Linsday's quote, if you wish to quote an expert, leave it in quotes, but attribute it to the name of the expert and what agency the expert works for: Jan Van Wagtendonk, a biologist at the Yellowstone Field Station writes...
- Watch also: you have two articles by Van Wagtedonk but the citation does not differentiate which article this quote is attributed to.
- There are indeed two refs by van Wagtendonk, but they differ greatly in page numbers. Is that sufficient to distinguish them?
- Watch also: you have two articles by Van Wagtedonk but the citation does not differentiate which article this quote is attributed to.
- My initial statement here was about parenthetic statements (see also this link), that appeared throughout the article. This article should explain all issues related to the understanding of wildfires. Links simply assist the reader in finding out more about the tangential issues, so don't depend on links to do the explaining for you. If wildfire modeling is an important concept for readers they should understand it here. Most would require only one or two sentences to explain the relevance of the concept to this one.
- My mistake. The "(see also...)" have been added in as text or removed.
- My initial statement here was about parenthetic statements (see also this link), that appeared throughout the article. This article should explain all issues related to the understanding of wildfires. Links simply assist the reader in finding out more about the tangential issues, so don't depend on links to do the explaining for you. If wildfire modeling is an important concept for readers they should understand it here. Most would require only one or two sentences to explain the relevance of the concept to this one.
- At least one sentence was cited with 5 ref links. Choose the three best and drop the rest to a notes system (seen here) if they absolutely must be referenced. --Moni3 (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't that make the notes section look a bit cluttered? These are the refs used (I deleted one of them):[5][6][7][8]
- Lists that go on and on should be included, but not in the prose. Rarely, in very controversial articles, facts are often so disputed that readers and editors just don't believe in one, two, or even three citations that confirm research. But the multiple cites interrupt reading so they should be dropped to a notes section. If it's not a very controversial idea, then it begs the question of why it's overcited. What's the nature of the cite?
- The section and the bulleted list are a composite of the information contained in the refs. To be honest, I would have to cite all three references after each bullet point to indicate the source of the information. Should I do this instead?
- Lists that go on and on should be included, but not in the prose. Rarely, in very controversial articles, facts are often so disputed that readers and editors just don't believe in one, two, or even three citations that confirm research. But the multiple cites interrupt reading so they should be dropped to a notes section. If it's not a very controversial idea, then it begs the question of why it's overcited. What's the nature of the cite?
Check out:
- Caribbean Pine, a tree especially in the Bahamas that spontaneously combusts when the sun hits the sap that acts as a magnifying glass. I've been to the Bahamas and seen these trees burst into flames and no one seems to care. It was weird. See Fire climax community here and sources at Bahamian pineyards.
- Added something. Your opinion?
- Sawgrass in the Everglades burns over the water. Sawgrass prairies and Florida slash pines are two fire-dependent communities that can also be destroyed during droughts because of the peat underlying most of the Everglades. See Geography and ecology of the Everglades. --Moni3 (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- What are the rules on adding an exact phrase from another article? For example, add the statement: "Fire in the sawgrass marshes serves to keep out larger bushes and trees, and releases nutrients from decaying plant matter more efficiently than decomposition.[9]" from the above-mentioned Everglades article.
I'm going to ask Maralia (talk · contribs) to copy edit the article as well. Her attention to detail is better than mine, an she will be able to give you excellent suggestions. I've run out of time right now, but I will do what I can to assist you. --Moni3 (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Maralia is sometimes gone for days at a time. I hope she will get back soon. I was away myself for the weekend. I'll look over the rest of the article today. --Moni3 (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- What do you think about highlighting the very controversial decision to allow Yellowstone National Park to burn in 1988? The park superintendant got so much negative reaction from that that the president became involved.
- I'll go look it up.
- It looks like there are a lot of opinions about what really happened, such as Yellowstone fires of 1988#Media coverage, "Despite widespread misconceptions that all fires were initially allowed to burn", and "fires they let burn leapt out of control". How could I best word this without passing judgment or misinformation?
- This is not clear to me: However, prevention policies must consider the role that humans play in wildfires, since, for example, only 5% of forest fires in Europe are not related to human involvement. Sources of human-caused fire may include arson, accidental ignition, or the uncontrolled use of fire in land-clearing and agriculture such as the slash-and-burn farming in Southeast Asia.
- Natural caused fires are common, but people cause a lot of fires. It's important to understand the causes of fires to prevent fires. Therefore, prevention policies must understand and plan for fires caused by humans. Should this be worded differently?
- This statement is vague: Additionally, while fuel treatments are typically limited to smaller areas, effective fire management requires the administration of fuels across large landscapes in order to reduce future fire size and severity.
- People/cities just go clean up their backyard or neighborhood, but managing large plots/forests is necessary to prevent the big fires (e.g. need to look at the big picture). Should this be worded differently?
- How early is this? Early detection efforts were focused on early response, accurate day and nighttime use, the ability to prioritize fire danger, and fire size and location in relation to topography
- Not sure. The ref referred to this article[4] but I'd have to buy it (and it wouldn't be verifiable). Your suggestion?
- Per WP:MOSIMAGES images should not sandwich text in between them such as in the Detection section.
- Should I delete one of the pics?
- Removed one: [[Image:Wildfire-ISS007 Mosaic2.jpg|thumb|right|160px|alt=High-altitude view of a mountain range with white-brown smoke billowing from several sources across the range|The [[Old Fire]] burning in the [[San Bernardino Mountains]] (image taken from the [[International Space Station]])]] [[Image:2009 Waldbrandwarnstufe 5-3.jpg|thumb|left|160px|Public sign to the highest level of fire (5) to a campsite in Germany]]
- Larger, medium-risk areas could be monitored by scanning towers that incorporate fixed cameras and sensors to detect smoke or additional factors such as the infrared signature of carbon dioxide produced by fires. Is this not a reality? Why the could be? If it's already being used, change it to can be. If it's in the future, clarify that it's still being developed or stuck in development hell for whatever reason.
- Changed to "can be".
- Spell all this out: Satellite-mounted sensors such as Envisat's AATSR and ERS-2's ATSR can measure infrared radiation emitted by fires, identifying hot spots greater than 39 °C (102 °F). The NOAA's Hazard Mapping System combines remote-sensing data from satellite sources such as GOES, MODIS, and AVHRR for detection of fire and smoke plume locations (see 2006 Southeast Asian haze#Imagery). I don't understand any of the information provided in these sentences. --Moni3 (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Spelled out. Regarding the information: sensors measure temperatures and variations in temps (hot spots) suggest fires. The Hazard Mapping System combines data from multiple sources based on a variety of techniques. Should I explain those techniques in the article?
Animal adaptations
A recent IP edit added a bit about "animal adaptations" - a quick Google search didn't yield much, as it appears that most animals just run away from fires. I'll add any info I come across to the article. MrBell (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
McKenzie, et. al., 898, talks about beetle attacks on trees, which encourages fire; and invasion by exotic animals over native ones (I'll this this info later). MrBell (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Quadrennial Fire Review (2009)
The following text was moved from the article to here so a consensus might be taken to its use in the article. Please feel free to comment as to how this information can be incorporated. MrBell (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The 2009 Quadrennial Fire Review (QFR) is a publication that examines the future of wildlfire in the United States and provides insight and predictions about potential changes in mission, roles and responsibilities. It was called the fire community's "crystal ball," by Tom Harbour, Director of Fire and Aviation Management for the USDA Forest Service. [10]
The QFR is not a policy or decision document, nor does it contain specific recommendations. Its purpose is to stimulate thought and discussion within the wildfire community about how the nation can best prepare for future wildfire seasons. According to the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), the QFR "was designed as a strategic evaluative process that develops an internal assessment of capabilities of current programs and resources in comparison to future needs for fire management." [11]
The QFR is published every four years. The first QFR was completed in 2005 and the second published in January 2009 by the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho; and the National Advanced Fire Research Institute in Tucson, Arizona. It is modeled on the Department of Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review.
The 2009 QFR was developed by fire experts from federal, state local and tribal organizations, plus assistance from non-government organizations and the research and academic communities. The overall effort was coordinated through the Brookings Institution. The QFR is not reviewed or approved by any government entity. It is meant to be an independent and objective document, free from political or agency influence. The QFR's projections of future conditions extend to a 10-to-20 year time frame, while the strategies for how to prepare for those future conditions is defined in a four-to-five year period.
The QFR looks at trends and makes forecasts about what will need to change within the fire community to deal with future challenges. Among the notable forecasts in the 2009 QFR are:
- Climate change will produce longer fire seasons, with the potential of 10-12 million acres burning in the United States by the year 2014. Also, wildfire will affect more geographic regions than in the past, specifically the Northeast and Great Lakes areas, which generally have been considered at low-risk. Alaska's fire vulnerability will increase, as well, as warmer temperatures dry out vegetation.
- The current drought cycle might last another 25 years, creating more stress on vegetation and contributing to a higher number of fires and more volatile fire behavior.
- Growth will slow in populated areas prone to wildfire (often called the "wildland-urban interface" or WUI), but they will still be at high risk from wildfires.
- Fire agency budgets will be strained by increasing demands, rising costs and falling government revenues.
- The concept of "protecting all communities at all costs" should transition to "fostering self-reliance and increasing resiliency." The education focus should shift toward more self-reliance and accountability, producing "fire-adapted communities."
- Social networking will become the most effective means of informing and educating the public about fire, as traditional media and
informational techniques continue to decline in popularity. The 2009 QFR also outlines an integrated fuels management plan that would help ensure that fuels treatment investments are tied more closely to land stewardship objectives. It also suggests that small-scale fuels treatments (prescribed burning, mechanical removal of brush, thinning, chemical treatments, and so forth) are not as effective as larger, landscape-scale treatments in terms of ecosystem health.
The 2005 QFR was prescient. For example, it predicted a significant increase in the number and costs of wildfires, dramatic changes in weather, accelerated WUI growth, and continued fuel build-ups. All of these forecasts proved correct.
More than 100 people participated in developing the 2009 version of the QFR. The next QFR is scheduled for publication in 2012. Electronic copies of the QFR are availabe at the NIFC website, [5]
- It appears that this information would be very useful in the wildfire modeling article. I don't think it's appropriate in the wildfire article because it deals with future predictions. MrBell (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Moved from article
The following block of text was partially moved from the article to here, because it seemed a bit off-topic.
"A September, 2003 wildfire in the North Yorkshire Moors destroyed some 2.5 square kilometers (600 acres) of heather and the underlying peat layers. Afterwards, wind erosion stripped the ash and the exposed soil, revealing archaeological remains dating back to 10,000 BC; however continuing erosion of the burnt moorland threatened these remains. The burnt moorland was stabilized by sowing ryegrass and heather seeds to allow the heather to regenerate.[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBell (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The image to the right was in the article but space is limited. Feel free to add it back if it's useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBell (talk • contribs) 16:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyone good at animations?
Any way to get this animation in a usable format for use in the article? MrBell (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Some papers for review...
- Remote sensing techniques to assess active fire characteristics and post-fire effects (Fire intensity, severity)
- Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: a brief review and suggested usage (Fire intensity, severity)
Causes of fire
- Forest Fire Statistics UNECE Timber Committee and the FAO European Forestry Commission
- Fores fires in the Mediterranean area
- The world on Fire by NOVA[13] has the following info:
| Continent/World Region | Country/Sub-region | Main cause of wildfire |
|---|---|---|
| North America | U.S. and Canada | Lightning |
| Mexico and Central America | Intentional agricultural burns (97% of all fires) | |
| South America | Escaped agricultural or land-conversion burns (50% to 90%) | |
| Europe | Mediterranean basin | Human negligence and accidents |
| Russia | Unmanaged fires burn freely? | |
| Western, Eastern, and Northern Europe | Prescribed burns | |
| Africa | Human causes (90%) - to remove dead vegetation, control undesirable plants in crop areas, and drive grazing animals to "less-preferred growing areas" | |
| Asia | Southeast Asia | Agricultural burning, often in rice paddies |
| China | Attributed to farmers or human carelessness (90%) | |
| Northwest China | Lightning (30%) | |
| Oceania | Australia | Most fires in Australia begin naturally (lightning strikes, sparks flying off machinery and cast-away cigarette butts)[7] |
| Fiji | torching by sugarcane farmers during harvest season | |
| New Zealand | human-generated in order to improve pastures for animals and encourage new growth. |
Text under construction (more to be added later):
- "The most common cause of wildfires varies throughout the world. In United States, Canada, and Northwest China, for example, lightning is the major source of ignition. In other parts of the world, human involvement is a major contributor. In Mexico, Central America, South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, Fiji, and New Zealand, wildfires can be attributed to human activities such as animal husbandry, agriculture, and land-conversion burning. Human carelessness is a major cause of wildfires in China and in the Mediterranean Basin. In Australia, the source of wildfires can be traced to both lightning strikes and human activities such as sparks flying off machinery and cast-away cigarette butts."[13] MrBell (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Detection ideas
Need to focus on international detection methods.
Automatic detection
- Satellites such as the Terra and Aqua are in sun-synchronous orbit and can relay information about fires around the globe. Other satellites are in geostationary orbit, such as the Meteosat-8 and -9 satellites which are fixed over the African continent.[12]
- Tower-mounted video and infrared cameras in Istria region, Croatia.[13]
- Tower-mounted cameras in Northern Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa.[14]
- German author:
- "CCD-cameras find the smoke, infrared (IR) radiometers detect the heat flux from the fire, IR spectrometers identify the spectral characteristics of the smoke gases, and light detection and ranging (LIDAR) systems measure the laser light backscattered by the smoke particles"
- "In time-critical local fire events in densely populated areas, ground-based fire watching is the first choice. In Germany several hundred observation towers are manned during the main forest-fire season. The fire-watchers observe the forests for up to 12 hours a day in the most difficult circumstances (extreme temperatures, poor hygienic conditions, isolation, only short breaks of concentration) and report on any smoke formation. Additionally, the authorities have to spend large sums on the construction of observation towers, which also need to be maintained and operated in accordance with relevant legislation and regulations."[15]
- "CCD-cameras find the smoke, infrared (IR) radiometers detect the heat flux from the fire, IR spectrometers identify the spectral characteristics of the smoke gases, and light detection and ranging (LIDAR) systems measure the laser light backscattered by the smoke particles"
- Spain (1999) - "DISTRIBUTED INTELLIGENT AUTOMATIC FOREST-FIRE DETECTION SYSTEM" [16][17]
- "Human detection is still the most extended method for forest-fire detection. However, the demand of automatic
detection systems exists due to economic and efficient environment protection. Forest-fire automatic detection is a complex problem that involves substantial amount of various sensorial information and data. Furthermore, the reliability of automatic detection systems is still a significant issue in the domain. The most important drawbacks of existing automatic forest-fire detection systems are high false alarm rate, low functional coverage and high cost of infrared cameras and maintenance."
- Izmir (Turkey) "Animals as Mobile Biological Sensors for Forest Fire Detection" [18]
- "The devices used in this system are animals which are native animals living in forests, sensors (thermo and radiation sensors with GPS features) that measure the temperature and transmit the location of the MBS, access points for wireless communication and a central computer system which classifies of animal actions. The system offers two different methods, firstly: access points continuously receive data about animals’ location using GPS at certain time intervals and the gathered data is then classified and checked to see if there is a sudden movement (panic) of the animal groups: this method is called animal behavior classification (ABC). The second method can be defined as thermal detection (TD): the access points get the temperature values from the MBS devices and send the data to a central computer to check for instant changes in the temperatures."
- "Early detection of forest fires, containment at the beginning of the fire, and extinguishment before spreading have vital importance."
- Spain - (MSG-SEVIRI) "FOREST FIRE DETECTION AND MONITORING BY MEANS OF AN INTEGRATED MODIS-MSG SYSTEM" [19]
- Good discussion of satellites in intro; "...fire detection is a necessity which won’t be solved until geostationary satellites prove their capacity to detect small fires and show their usefulness in providing early alert warnings, which will be really difficult considering the difficulty of building high spatial resolution thermal sensors."
- EU Fire - "Innovative optoelectronic and acoustic sensing technologies for large scale forest fire long term monitoring." [20]
- India "Efficient Forest Fire Detection System: A Spatial Data Mining and Image Processing Based Approach" [21]
- Data mining of "huge databases" using fuzzy logic, AI, etc. (not sure if this can be used here)
- 1971 USFS "Remote Sensing for Forest Fire Control" [22]
- "The keys to reducing fire suppression and damage costs lie in prevention, early detection, quick initial attack and pre-fire treatment and planning. Recent advances in remote sensing technology offer opportunities for greatly improving our ability to detect fire-causing lighting and fires in their latent stages, to assist initial attack forces in locating fires that are not easily seen visually, and to determine the perimeter, relative intensity, and location of spot fires on large conflagrations when visual methods are ineffective because of smoke or darkness."
- Portugal "Feasibility of forest-fire smoke detection using lidar" [23]
- Use of LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging = visible range radar) to more precisely (high sensitivity and spatial resolution) detect smoke plumes
Suppression ideas
Need to focus on international suppression methods.
- ground crews (on the front line)[27]
- hotshot crews (hike in)
- smokejumpers (parachute in)
- mop-up
2. Tactics
- direct attack - throwing sand, beating with sticks, hose lines (spray water or foam)
- indirect - backfiring, firebreaks, handlines w/ pulaski, dozer lines, retardant, gel (structure protection)
3. Vehicles - standard fire trucks (water, retardant, foam), others? 4. Aircraft - helitack (ping pong balls), unmanned planes, tanker planes - direct (water) vs indirect attack (retardant, foam, gel) 5. Chemicals - silver iodide, retardants
Question: Is Wildfire magazine a reputable source? [28][29] MrBell (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Cryptic C62
Resolved comments.
|
|---|
|
Ahoy! Here are some comments on the article's prose:
- The Detection section seems to be focused on the use of technology, specifically within the United States, leaving developing nations totally underrepresented here. I think it's important for readers to understand how other cultures deal with fires without the use of our fancy gadgets.
- I agree that there is a US bias to it. Searches on the internet usually discuss the use of satellite imagery (mostly NASA equipment) to detect fires in rural areas. Any suggestions on particular phrases that I could search for on the internet? MrBell (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we could narrow it down to the areas where wildfires are prevalent and work from there. "fynbos fire detection" looks like it might have some useful results. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that there is a US bias to it. Searches on the internet usually discuss the use of satellite imagery (mostly NASA equipment) to detect fires in rural areas. Any suggestions on particular phrases that I could search for on the internet? MrBell (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- My first (and second and third) impression(s) of the Suppression section is that it really doesn't discuss enough of the different technologies and suppression techniques. Much of the information that's currently in there is redundant with the Prevention section. The line seems very clear to me: Prevention deals with actions taken to prevent fires from starting, whereas Suppression deals with actions taken to extinguish a fire after it has started. The second paragraph of Suppression crosses this line.
- Would you suggest moving the second paragraph to the Prevention section? As for the lack of info regarding "the different technologies and suppression techniques", I'll add that to my list of things to research. MrBell (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Perhaps it could be merged into the last paragraph ("Building codes in fire-prone areas...") as both paragraphs are focused on the border between forests and human settlements. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Moved. Do you think that new paragraph flows well enough the way it is? MrBell (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, works fine for me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Moved. Do you think that new paragraph flows well enough the way it is? MrBell (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Perhaps it could be merged into the last paragraph ("Building codes in fire-prone areas...") as both paragraphs are focused on the border between forests and human settlements. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Would you suggest moving the second paragraph to the Prevention section? As for the lack of info regarding "the different technologies and suppression techniques", I'll add that to my list of things to research. MrBell (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's the entire article. I'll keep watching this page and we'll work on the Detection and Suppression sections whenever you're ready. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- ^ Martell, 1560.
- ^ Are Big Fires Inevitable? A Report on the National Bushfire Forum, 14.
- ^ National Wildfire Coordinating Group Communicator's Guide For Wildland Fire Management, 1.
- ^ Wildland Fire Policy, US Forest Service, retrieved 2008-12-21
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
FireBehaviorwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
ReferenceAwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Structurewas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Scott, Joe H.; Burgan, Robert E. (June 2005), Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model (PDF), US Forest Service, retrieved 2009-02-05
- ^ Lodge, pp. 39–41.
- ^ (Address by Tom Harbour before the International Association of Fire Chiefs Conference, March 26, 2009)
- ^ (Written by Don Artley, January 2009, in IAFC newsletter, article titled, "Quadrennial Fire Review.")
- ^ Fylingdales Moor a lost landscape rises from the ashes. Current Archaelogy. XIX(226):20–27.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Krockwas invoked but never defined (see the help page).