Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wildfire/archive2

< 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 not promoted by Karanacs 16:04, 9 February 2010 [1].

Wildfire edit

Nominator(s): MrBell (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because of its importance as a global topic. It has been some time since the previous nomination and I believe that all of the concerns have been addressed. I just updated all the dead links and figured it was time for some additional feedback. MrBell (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a random comment: I'm surprised that there are no print sources at all. While I see a good number of online journal articles, print sources are usually far more thorough, and a topic like this is bound to have them. Any particular reason you didn't include any? NW (Talk) 00:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Print sources as in books? I have access to books on the topic, but I was under the impression that WP:Verify was essential, and most people seem to prefer information that is accessible from the internet. Is this not the case? MrBell (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most people seem to prefer information that is accessible from the internet". Not the case. Definitely not the case. • Ling.Nut 04:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other things being equal, freely-readable online sources are better than non-free, because the free sources are easier to verify. However, Wikipedia articles should cite the best sources, even if they're not freely-readable. Eubulides (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added both - your thoughts? MrBell (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes. You're in for some dissapointment. An important subject (like this one) should be sourced (almost exclusively) to books and scientific journal articles. You may have to rewrite the whole thing for FA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous comment is a bit strong, as many of the sources cited are quite high quality, e.g., Bowman et al. 2009 (doi:10.1126/science.1163886). Anyway, here are some recent sources, some all freely readable, that seem worthwhile looking into, and perhaps cited:
I've tried to access this article on several occasions, but it doesn't appear to be available without subscription. Do you have a direct link to it? MrBell (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google search found one, which I added to the above citation. Eubulides (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much - I'll start reading it today. MrBell (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eubulides (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the resources. I'll check them out and add them over the next few days. MrBell (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposing over sources. Personally I like web sources, since they can be checked easily. Another editor and I took Jackie Robinson through FA, and had to ad maybe 100 book sources so that it didn't rely on web sources. It depends on who the reviewers are. Not everyone is a stickler for book sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article took about 25 seconds to load, which is far too long to edit comfortably. The HTML took 21.614 seconds to generate on the server, a sign that it's using slow citation templates. I suggest switching from {{citation}} (which is the biggest, slowest, and hoggiest citation template) to faster templates (I like {{vcite journal}}, but I'm biased) or simply doing the citations by hand, without templates. Eubulides (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed them from citation to other templates - is it faster now? MrBell (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. With the switched templates the page took 22.837 seconds of server time in my test. I was thinking of the vancite templates; with them, the page took 12.051 seconds in my test; much better. Also, the current version generates 300 kB of HTML, whereas the vancite version generates only 205 kB, so there's a significant savings in download time too. The vancite templates switch to Vancouver system style, which you may not want, so I reverted my edit to try them out. If you don't like the Vancouver system, other options would be to do the citations by hand, or to lessen the number of citations (does the article really need 200 citations)? Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vancite sounds like a good idea - could you revert back to your revision? MrBell (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with the corresponding change to {{Origin of fire}} to handle the citations there. Eubulides (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • Current ref 2 isn't published by Cambridge University Press, it's a book that Cambridge is hosting online. Should cite like a book, not a webpage
Done - better? MrBell (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes, I noted NOVA, VOA, but there may be others.
I spelled out VOA and others, but I think NOVA doesn't have an abbreviation (it's the title of the TV show). Your thoughts? MrBell (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a multi-national organization - http://www.ewatercrc.com.au/about/partnerdetails.html MrBell (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure - text and citation was removed. MrBell (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love it if the images were bigger. They're so educational and visually appealing at full resolution, it's a shame they're so tiny in the article itself. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Juliancolton for all the non-panoramas (except maybe the lead image), and especially for the model near the prose end (I had to squint to read the labels). Give 'em an upsize, perhaps with upright for a percentage increase. --an odd name 15:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, mildly. This is not a major oppose, but rather a keen request for another prose copyedit. The prose is mostly professional, but there are some infelicities and grammar glitches that an independent copyeditor would surely catch. Some examples, all from the first third of the article:
  • The ability of a wildfire's burning front to change direction
How about A wildfire's burning front may also change direction unexpectedly and jump across fire breaks.? MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Growth and behavior are unique to each fire due to many complex variables, but each wildfire exhibits several basic characteristics. The intention is presumably to claim they all exhibit the same basic characteristics. It would be clearer to say so.
How about These factors produce fires that are always unique, but each wildfire exhibits several basic characteristics.? MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1949 the Mann Gulch fire in Montana, USA, thirteen smokejumpers died. "In" or similar needs to come twice, since it happened both in 1949, and in the Mann Gulch fire. Or in the 1949 Mann Gulch fire would work, I suppose.
Changed to In the 1949 Mann Gulch fire.... MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sunlight warms the ground during the day and causes air currents to travel uphill, and downhill during the night as the land cools. Uncomfortable sentence structure.
How about Sunlight warms the ground during the day which creates air currents that travel uphill. At night the land cools, creating air currents that travel downhill.? MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Caption)A tree struck by a lightning
How about A tree that was stuck by a lightning on Mount Erymanthos in Greece.? MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (And yes, bigger images! Down with postage stamps, especially for attractive images like these!) Bishonen | talk 19:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I'm no copy-editor, but I can change whatever you notice. Several editors have gone through the article, but I guess a few things were missed. MrBell (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the examples I gave are *examples only*, by no means a complete collection. I'm reviewing, not editing, and unfortunately I don't have time to note all minor and/or stylistic problems for you. I do understand that people miss stuff, but I think that simply means you need to get more eyes on the text. Responding to your fixes:

  • "A wildfire's burning front": Yes, ok.
  • "These factors produce": Well, no, you're not addressing what I'm after. My question was, are these characteristics the same as the characteristics of other wildfires? If they're not, it's a self-evident statement. Pretty much everything in the world "exhibits basic characteristics"!
Ahh, now I see it. How about "Wildfire behavior is often complex and variably dependent on factors such as fuel type, moisture content in the fuel, humidity, wind speed, topography, geographic location, and ambient temperature. While these factors produce fires that are always unique, wildfires can be described by the following characteristics:"? MrBell (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And by "the following characteristics", do you mean the entirety of the rest of the section, with its five subheaders? That doesn't work. Really not. You have to finish the sentence "While these factors produce fires that are always unique, wildfires can be described by the following characteristics:". Right now it ends with a colon. And the few lines under "Characteristics" just aren't a suitable way of introducing the subsections, which I take to be the job those lines are there for. Bishonen | talk 01:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Regarding introductory/summary paragraphs, can I write one myself based on the material that follows, or does the exact wording have to be linked to refs? I could group 4-5 references together to create a summary paragraph, but I've been told previously that 4-5 refs after a block of text is too much. MrBell (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1949": Yes, ok.
  • "Sunlight warms": Yes, fine.
  • "A tree that": No, the problem was "a lightning". Lightning is an uncountable noun. Change to "struck by lightning". Bishonen | talk 23:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Oops - changed to "struck by lightning". MrBell (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch, it turns out that those images were downsized from the default. I just now removed all specifications of sizes smaller than 300px: this noticeably grew the images and addresses some of the objections noted above. As logged-in users can specify a preference for 300px thumbnails, articles typically shouldn't specify sizes smaller than that. If some images are still too small, "upright=1.1" etc. could be used to tweak them a bit but I wouldn't go overboard as the default size is scheduled to increase from 180px to 220px soon. Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to upright=1.1 - is that too small? MrBell (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.1 should be fine for now (gives you 200px). We may want to revisit this once the default is changed to 220px, as 1.1 will turn into 240px, which is a tad large for typical readers. Eubulides (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this point. I have only looked at a single section / issue, "Human involvement". I don't think an article on the subject of wildfire can comprehensively examine the literature without drawing on Pyne's massive study Cycle of Fire:

  • "World fire: the culture of fire on earth" (1997)
  • "Fire in America: a cultural history of wildland and rural fire" (1997)
  • "Vestal Fire: An Environmental History, Told Through Fire, of Europe and Europe's Encounter with the World" (2000)

Until this work is cited, the article cannot meet 1(c) (in my view).

Is this something I can check these out from my local library? MrBell (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please try following the ISBN links in the following citations. Follow the WorldCat links in the resulting pages. They should tell you about local libraries.
  • Pyne SJ. World Fire: The Culture of Fire on Earth. Holt; 1995. ISBN 0805032479.
  • Pyne SJ. Fire in America: A Cultural History of WIldland and Rural Fire. Princeton University Press; 1982. ISBN 0691083002.
  • Pyne SJ. Vestal Fire: An Environmental History, Told through Fire, of Europe and Europe's Encounter with the World. University of Washington Press; 1997. ISBN 0295975962.
Although these are important sources, please don't take them as gospel. See, for example, Pausas & Keeley 2009 (the source I mentioned previously), which is careful to label one of Pyne's hypothesis as a hypothesis. Eubulides (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. I'm not sure how much time it takes for an FA review, but I'll try to get those books sometime. MrBell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting they be taken as gospel, but the article cannot be comprehensive and "a thorough and representative survey" of the lit without looking at, and using as appropriate, this major study. As for "careful to label one of Pyne's hypothesis as a hypothesis" - well, if Pyne says it is a hypothesis, then what else would one label it when agreeing with the author? Sounds like scientific community weasel-speak for "I don't think i agree, but i can't explain why." Either way, i am not suggesting Pyne's "hypotheses" be included, just the scholarship. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the same section: reference is made to "University of Oregon. Climate change, human activity and wildfires" (currently note 111). This is the uni's media release about a major study scheduled two years ago for publication in Nature Geoscience. The study should be being cited, not this media release.

Link to journal added. MrBell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<frowns>Well, sure, but it wasn't just a change in the ref that i meant, i meant actually reading the ref to see if it says what the media release says. Just looking at the Nature abstract, for example, i see the abstract refers to "sedimentary charcoal records spanning six continents", whereas the WP article refers to "Charcoal evidence from the Americas". This discrepancy concerns me, which is why the actual refereed article should be the basis for the WP content. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the same section: prose problems. First sentence says "Wildfires have been mentioned in human history, from minor allusions in the Bible to classical writers such as Homer, although less focus was placed on uncultivated lands where wildfires occurred". Early human history perhaps - the range from the Bible to Homer isn't much of a range! Less than what? And the "from" "to" thing doesn't scan right either.

How about: "Wildfires have been mentioned in human history, including minor allusions in the Bible and classical writers such as Homer. However, while ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Roman writers were aware of fires, they were not very interested in the uncultivated lands where wildfires occurred."? MrBell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but "Wildfires have been mentioned in human history" is a very daggy phrase, and doesn't focus on the time period involved. There's really room for a lot more work here. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next sentence: "Wildfires were also used in battles" But we have not been told about any uses yet, so they cannot then be "also used".

How about "Wildfires were used in battles throughout human history as early thermal weapons."? MrBell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Thermal weapons" makes it sound like something the Klingons would wield, along with "ray guns". What about an expression from the literature explaining how they were used in combat? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Later that para: "Charcoal sedimentary data off the Pacific coast of Central America also suggests that more burning occurred in the 50 years before the Spanish colonization of the Americas". I assume what is meant is "Charcoal found in sedimentary deposits" - "Charcoal sedimentary data" is not going to fly as a compound noun. Then "more burning occurred in the 50 years before..." more than when?

How about: "Charcoal found in sedimentary deposits off the Pacific coast of Central America suggests that more burning occurred in the 50 years before the Spanish colonization of the Americas than compared to periods after the colonization."? MrBell (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Half way there, but the expression "compared to periods" needs to be deleted from your revised version, otherwise it doesn't make sense. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this was just one para. I haven't read the rest (may get to it sometime), but from this section (which is closest to my own expertise), the article needs work. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I wait until you have a chance to read the rest to start making edits? MrBell (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • minor PS - There are two van Wagtendonk refs in the end list, but no discrimination between them in the notes. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They differ in page numbers, but I agree that it's hard to differentiate between the two. Any suggestions? MrBell (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, use years, as in standard Harvard referencing. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related to that point - controlled burning is a major subject in any discussion of wildfire. In Australia at least, there is a substantial debate - and significant research effort - relating to the merits and management of controlled burning, or hazard reduction burning (the prevailing term now). I would suggest the article is going to need more than the say-so of a single researcher (van Wagtendonk) to have text such as this: "burns are reportedly "the most effective treatment for reducing a fire’s rate of spread,..." " Quoting this one researcher won't be enough at FA i would suggest. This is too big an issue.
  • Similarly, the article has "Building codes in fire-prone areas typically require that..." but the two cites for this sentence are Californian - no mention of whether this is the case in other states, Australia, African countries, Spain or other areas where wildfire is a significant human settlement hazard. See for example this global overview paper which covers the US and Australia and some other countries (unfortunately omits Meditterranean states), and in fact some countries don't have national bushfire codes (p. 5). Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2010 (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/Wildfire/archive2&oldid=1210511432"