Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tinder Fire/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 July 2023 [1].

Tinder Fire[edit]

Nominator(s): –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is another wildfire article and another from the state of Arizona. This is also a briefer one, without any ecological tail that any sources I saw bothered to note. In April 2018, parties unknown lit a campfire in a no-fire zone of the Coconino National Forest. A month later, 16,000 acres of National Forest and 96 structures had burned. The responsible parties were never caught. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:2018_04_30-17.41.49.915-CDT.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found a copy of it posted by the Forest Service on Flickr and replaced. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie[edit]

  • "the Governor of Arizona" — should be "governor of Arizona" per MOS:JOB.
  • Use lowercase "am" or "a.m." per MOS:TIME.
  • "13 fires" Since this begins a sentence, use "Thirteen"
  • Add a comma in "1000"
  • "By May 3, 625 firefighters worked on containing the Tinder Fire" maybe "were working"?

It's short, but it's exhaustive. Also see one item I note in the source review. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 12:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie: Source review[edit]

No issues with the reliability of supplied sources.

  • It looks like the article Tinder Fire grows but weather conditions improve is an AP wire story. It has an AP copyright instead of a Scripps one like the other KGUN story.
    • Officials have estimated that the fire about 50 miles (80 kilometers) south of Flagstaff has burned 30 buildings and threatened about 1,000 homes and other buildings. The other reference here corroborates the acres; neither has the "destroyed at least 20 homes".
Fixed :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 12:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

Lead:

  • The Tinder Fire was a wildfire that burned 16,309 acres (66.00 km2) of the Coconino National Forest in the U.S. state of Arizona in April and May 2018.
"during" April and May 2018
Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fire was detected by a United States Forest Service (USFS) lookout tower on April 27, 2018.
  • The USFS immediately began efforts to contain the spread of the Tinder Fire, which benefited from high winds, low humidity, and high temperatures.
immediately is ordinarily defined as at once or instantly. The Fire section tells readers that
"Within the day, 100 firefighters had arrived to combat the Tinder Fire"...?
Fixed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Investigation determined that the Tinder Fire was caused by an illegal campfire.
"An" or "the" investigation
Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fire:

  • Winds as fast as 50 mph (80 km/h) fanned the fire and hindered firefighting aviation—which was grounded on April 29 by a civilian drone flying over the fire—over April 28 and April 29.
Winds as fast as 50 mph -> suggest - Winds "up to" 50 mph
OK Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • By May 3, 625 firefighters were working on containing the Tinder Fire, a process then estimated to be 48% completed.
Why shouldn't it be "the" process
Sticking my nose in here, but "the process then estimated" doesn't work grammatically. You could rejigger the sentence to avoid using "a process", I suppose, but simply subbing "the" for "a" here is incorrect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Went more with PMC's comment here and reconfigured the sentence to omit "a process" and that estimate. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evacuation orders began to lifted on May 4, by which time the fire had grown to an area of 15,841 acres (6,411 ha) but was believed to be 79% contained.[18][19]
"The" evacuation
Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath:

  • About 10% of that area suffered total foliage mortality.
"this" area
Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Investigation into the cause of the fire began on April 27 and was determined by May 1 to be an abandoned, illegal campfire.
"The" investigation
OK –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Investigators were unable to determine the responsible party.
  • "The" investigators
  • responsible party or "parties"
Both done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This it for now Pendright (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support the nominaion - Pendright (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC[edit]

  • Hey maybe I missed it but where did the name "Tinder Fire" come from anyway? Is it for tinder the firemaking substance?
  • I don't know. Sometimes people report why a fire was named like it was and sometimes it doesn't. This, as far as I know, was not one of those. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ooh - found something while Googling how wildfires get named: [2]. Apparently it was supposed to be the Kinder Fire but someone made a typo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note, I added a USFS source for the trail name and tweaked the phrasing a bit. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "four red flag warnings had been issued" - who issues these?
  • "In June 2019, the Ecological Restoration Institute" - this seems like it belongs in Aftermath, since it happened after
I don't get why you axed it. It makes sense for it to be in the article, just not in the place where it was. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in #Background because it's background for the fire season. It doesn't belong in the aftermath for this particular fire. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I still disagree, but I think it makes more sense to retain it in a weird location than to remove it, so I'm not going to fight it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's really it, not much to complain about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a support here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

  • "The investigation into the fire's cause determined that the Tinder Fire was caused by an illegal campfire." --> Would anything be lost by removing the repetitive "cause" so that we have "The investigation into the fire determined that the Tinder Fire was caused by an illegal campfire."
  • "In January 2018, Doug Ducey, the governor of Arizona, warned that Arizona..." --> "In January 2018, Doug Ducey, the governor of Arizona, warned that the state..." to avoid repitition
  • Also, what entity conducted the investigation?
  • "The evacuation orders began to lifted on May 4" isn't grammatical
  • "by May 24, it was declared to be 95% contained" --> Is it known when the fire was declared entirely out?

That's all I got. ~ HAL333 23:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy to support. ~ HAL333 15:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/questions by CT55555[edit]

I'm new to FAC, so take this input as amateur comment, not expert review. My comments and questions:

  1. Of course climate change doesn't cause any fire, but its impacts do make things dryer and warmer, and so I was surprised there was no mention of that context. Of course, that's a bit WP:OR so my question is, did you find any sources that addressed this? My comment is informed by Tim Bousquet's comments at after the 9 minute mark on this podcast
There is plenty of press coverages about the impact of climate change on wildfires in Arizona, but not on this specific fire. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Why is 2,000 wildfires redlinked? Is there going to be a list of the 2,000?
That is a piped link leading to the 2017 Arizona wildfire season. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The article talks about 30 buildings being damaged. It doesn't mention how many animals were killed (of course, I could only imagine an estimate). Does that mean you could not find that info?
Correct. For an example of a fire whose effect on local wildlife was noted, see Frye Fire. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to see forest fire articles being considered at FAC. This one does seem short. I wonder if it could be expanded in terms of climate change context and impact on wildlife. I'm too new to FAC to offer a support or oppose. CT55555(talk) 03:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my... third or fourth? wildfire article at FAC. When I have information about climate conditions leading up to a fire, I do make note of them. Unfortunately, I don't always have it and always update these articles when I do obtain that information. I anticipate that after the articles for the 2017 and 2018 seasons are filled out, there will be some more information to add to this and other wildfire articles. Lastly, welcome to FAC :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi CT55555, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Until a just little more time has passed (for my own learning), I feel unqualified to firmly state support or opposition. I lean towards support. CT55555(talk) 17:31, 15 July 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/Tinder_Fire/archive1&oldid=1166031988"