Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Goodwin Fire/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 March 2023 [1].

Goodwin Fire edit

Nominator(s): –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy again. I'm back with another wildfire in the great state of Arizona in 2017. This one's not quite as exciting as the previous fire, though; no holy mountains or pestilence. This article was retooled a bit following my previous FAC based on suggestions there, and I can't wait to see what further lessons I can learn from this FAC. Wildfires are an underdeveloped topic area on the English Wikipedia and it's been exciting to see how I can sharpen this area. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Changed to better describe the image. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT edit

Hello Vami, I will complete a prose review by the end of this weekend. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That image isn't very high quality; it isn't very easy to make out the burn scar. There is also this file, which is too low res to make out out the legend. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking "season" to Dry season in "The State of Arizona expected a "normal" season". I would say to link Fire season, but it is a disambig.
  • I have not seen sources use "dry season" to describe the fire season. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for MOS:PERCENT compliance, as you use both "%" and "percent" in the article; you should only be using one or the other.
  • "$16.6 million, adjusted for inflation" please include the year you are using to calculate inflation.
  • The only year those templates are calculating with is the source year. I did not think it necessary to include the year it's displaying since that will constantly be changing. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say in the article "109 houses were damaged, of which 13 were destroyed" but the source says "109 homes were damaged (13 homes sustained major damage or were a total loss)", which is not the same thing. The wording in the article should be adjusted to match the source.
  • "Helicopters began dropping 27,365 lb (12,413 kg) of grass seeds" should this be "grass seed?"
  • "Over 9,000 people were evacuated and the fire destroyed 17 homes and damaged another 19 structures." This sentence is awkward due to the use of "and" twice. Suggest replacing the first "and" with a semicolon.
  • That's all I have right now. Will take another look once you respond to these comments. Overall the article is in good shape. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: Done? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Waiting for responses on points 1 and 2. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Provided. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to do one more readthrough tomorrow but I am likely to support. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yavapai County officials issued smoke advisory warnings on June 29." This is paywalled, but I am skeptical the source wording is "smoke advisory warnings". At least with the NWS system, the three categories of alerts are advisory, watch, and warning. I am thinking this should be either "issued smoke advisories on June 29" or "issued smoke warnings on June 29".
  • I don't have any further concerns, so I am going to Support on prose. Good job with this article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Lead & IB
  • You have U.S. in the lead and US in the IB: either are acceptable, but you should be consistent
  • It may be worth thinking about a smaller scale map to replace File:USA Arizona location map.svg. You rattle through the names of several roads and towns in the description of the fire, all of which have no context without a map or local knowledge. (I don't force this on you, but I'll leave you to think it over – it won't affect my decision in the end)
Background
  • That's an oversight, should be "Goodwin Fire". Corrected now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fire
  • "Also on June 27": also? You've not mentioned the 27th before. You could go with just "On June 27".
  • I am presuming "preemptive" is correct in AmEng? (In BrEng we have it "pre-emptive", but I seem to remember you don't bother with the hyphens as much as we do – just checking either way)

That's it from me. Short review for a short article, but it's well written and doesn't over dramatise or fill with unnecessary details; leaning heavily to support. – SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good stuff. I'm happy to support now. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry edit

I enjoyed your previous fire article and this one looks in good shape. I'm glad you adopted the background section; I think it adds useful context.

  • This might not be relevant here and might not be sourceable at all but at what point do the authorities decide to tackle a fire as opposed to containing it or letting it burn itself out?
  • Can we have an explanatory gloss on chaparral so the reader doesn't have to click? It seems to be a specific thing to that part of the world.
  • 109 houses were damaged and two residents had to be rescued from their homes pedantic, but don't start a sentence with a numeral per MOS:NUMERAL

That's all I've got. Short article, but doesn't seem to lack anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Harry. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're more than welcome. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comments Support by Pendright edit

Lead:

  • The fire destroyed 17 homes and damaged another 19 structures, but did not injure or kill any firefighters or civilians.
but "it" did not injure
  • Despite firefighting aircraft being twice grounded by civilian drones operating in the burn area, fire crews made rapid progress containing the fire's spread after June 28.
"the" fire crews
  • The fire was fully contained on July 10, but had lasting environmental consequences.
Add "it" between but & had, or drop the comma

Background:

  • The State of Arizona [had] expected a "normal" [fire] season but one with high fire potential in the state's southern grasslands [due to] because of high temperatures, low humidity, and an abundance of fuels.[3]
Suggest the above additions

Fire:

  • The pair reported the fire and began digging a firebreak; firefighting units arrived to begin fire suppression efforts two hours later.
Suggest -> firefighting units arrived "two hours later" to begin fire suppression...
  • Doug Ducey, the Governor of Arizona, declared Yavapai County to be in a state of emergency the next day,[13][14] and [he] secured additional state and federal resources for containing the Goodwin Fire.
Suggest the above change

Aftermath:

  • The fire forced the evacuation of 9,000 people, destroyed 17 homes, and [it] damaged another 19 structures.[5]
Suggest the above addition 
I don't understand this suggestion; adding an "it" there strikes me as unnecessary since the fire is already the active subject of this sentence. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More than 650 firefighters were involved in containing the Goodwin Fire at its height.[13]
  • Might be better placed under the Fire section
  • Were the fire crews all from Arizona?
  • A human cause for the Goodwin Fire was suspected by firefighters,[19] but the subsequent investigation did [could] not determine a specific cause.
Suggest the above addition

Environmental consequences:

  • On July 19, rainwater drained from the Goodwin Fire burn scar into Big Bug Creek, near Mayer, and [it] overflowed into a trailer park within Mayer's municipal limits.
Suggest the above addition
I have instead placed a "which" here. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 109 houses were damaged and two residents had to be rescued from their homes.[37][38][39] Some evacuations ordered in response to the flooding remained in place until August 19.[40]
Seems more like aftermath?
  • Helicopters began dropping 27,365 lb (12,413 kg) of grass seed and 2,105 short tons (1,910 t) of straw on August 18.[43]
  • Some readers might ask, why the straw?
  • Fertilizer and/or bedding, I imagine, but that's just conjecture. I've cut the mention of the straw. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known whether or not the reseeding was sucessful?

Finished Pendright (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton. Unless otherwise noted, I have adopted these suggested changes. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting - Pendright (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC edit

Parking myself here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "June 24, 2017, by a two-man fire patrol" and "Bradshaw Mountains, near Prescott, Arizona" I think you can lose the commas here
  • Odd question but if the chaparral had been disturbed what would the difference have been?
  • Yes; there would have been less shrubland for the fire to burn. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yavapai County, Arizona" you can probably just say Yavapai County (applies again later)
  • I'll retain it to firmly root the prose in Arizona, not that there are many other Yavapai Counties out there and in spite of the lead saying the fire was in Arizona, since the lead should be a summary of the body prose. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the prose already is clearly rooted in Arizona. The fire is stated to take place there in both the lead and the body before Yavapai is mentioned. It would only be necessary to clarify the state the county is in if it were somehow not in Arizona.
  • "The Goodwin Fire was one of 2,321 wildfires that burned 429,564 acres (173,838 ha) in Arizona in 2017." I won't die on this hill if no one else here feels this way, but to me this reads like each wildfire burned that many acres. (Compare "Jane Smith was one of 10 basketball players that scored 100 points that year" - see what I mean? It reads like each of the 10 scored 100.)
  • Added "in total" to this sentence to hopefully rectify this. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "normal" fire season but one with high potential" - is it just me, or is this a contradictory forecast? Everything will be normal except the parts that will be bad?
  • They said it'd be normal everywhere except for the grasslands in the southern areas of the state. I've clarified along these lines. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the 2011 season exceptionally bad?
    • Yes. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you say that in the text? Otherwise it's unclear why 2011 specifically is being referenced.
  • Not sure the 2018 study belongs in Background - maybe under Aftermath?
    • I disagree, since #Background is about the 2017 season while #Aftermath is about this fire's background specifically. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brief mention that Mayer and Breezy Pines are settlements? It's not entirely clear if you don't already know what they are
  • "declared Yavapai County to be in a state of emergency the next day" -> "declared a state of emergency in Yavapai County the next day" is a little snappier
  • Was anybody arrested for the subsequent drone issues or just the first unlucky jerkwad?
    • No, as far as I know. They probably were, and no one bothered to write about it, or I missed that they did. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A human cause for the Goodwin Fire was suspected by firefighters" -> passive voice. "Firefighters suspected..." would be better

Overall no serious gripes, another well-written article in general. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to a few things above but they're not enough to withhold support over even if they're not changed. Everything I didn't comment on looks fine now. Supporting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • You include the publisher for all the web citations except FN 35; any reason not to include it there? And FNs 1, 5 & 13 have no website/work parameter. Consistency is all that's required; is there some logic here that I'm not seeing?
    • Publisher (IBM) included. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      OK for FN 1; can you say why we don't need the website/work parameter for the other three? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Slipped my mind. I've added the requested parameter for 13. 5 is published by a study center at a university, so I feel the template already reflects, as much as possible, its origin (except I suppose that this copy is hosted on a website that as far as I know isn't affiliated with the said university). –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      OK on FN 5. I would suggest using "Office of the Arizona Governor: Katie Hobbs" rather than the domain name, though, on 13. However, I can also see that it's a bit duplicative of the publisher, which you have as "Governor of Arizona", so if you wanted to remove the publisher too I think that would be fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I've seen the "series" parameter used for a web citation before (FN 5). Looking at the formatted version of the citation it's hard to tell that it's not intended as a location. I think this is OK, though; I'm just curious as what you intend it to convey.
    • I treat FN 5 like I've treated NRHP nomination forms previously. It's essentially a journal, but doesn't have an ISBN or ISSN so I haven't used Cite book or journal with it. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need location= in some of the cite news footnotes. E.g. FN 18 is from The Daily Courier; most readers won't know that's an Arizona paper (and there are a couple of other US papers with the same title). There's no need to add location if it's obvious from the paper title, of course, and I would say it's optional for the TV stations, though personally I'd probably add it.
  • It looks like most or all of the archive links for The Arizona Republic have been excluded from the Wayback Machine, so I would cut them. The direct links appear to be paywalled so you might flag those.

Sources are all reliable for what they are used for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Suggest adding the paywall symbol for The Arizona Republic but that's not a FAC requirement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also done. Thanks a ton for this review. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Goodwin_Fire/archive1&oldid=1143638356"