Talk:Boundary Fire (2017)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boundary Fire (2017)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 14:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello! My name is GhostRiver, and I'll be conducting this GA review. I will assess the article against the good article criteria. Once I complete my review, you will have seven days to implement the suggested edits.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lede

• I would mention in the lede the impact on US 180, as that's given significant weight in the body
  •  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• As an Oxford comma girlie, I would suggest one after and leftovers from a previous wildfire, but MOS says either/or
  •  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Background

• The State of Arizona If referring to the physical state, "state" should be lowercase. If referring to the government entity, would prefer more specificity. Article says this view comes from Arizona State Forester Jeff Whitney.
  •  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• expected a "normal" season Per MOS:QUOTEPOV I would remove the quotations around "normal". Would also specify that "normal" only applies to the northern forests, as per source
  •  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• After the sentence beginning Temperatures in Arizona, you can remove "2017" from all the dates. We know we're talking about that year/season.
  •  Removed –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Fire

• At about 02:02 pm Two comments here. First, what time zone? Second, per MOS:TIME, it should either be 2:02 p.m. or 14:02.
  • Both  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• US 180 was closed overnight on June 8 We know from the prior sentence that it's June 8, can cut the date from this sentence
  •  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• then was closed until further notice → then remained closed until further notice
  •  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• more quickly and thereby reduce soil burn severity → more quickly, thereby reducing soil burn severity
  •  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• The percent symbol should be replaced by the word "percent", per MOS:PERCENT\
  •  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• but made rapid progress in containing its spread even as it also continued to rapidly spread. Unclear/repetitive wording
  • Yikes. Pruned big time. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Aerial firefighting was grounded on June 25 - did it resume after that, or was that the end of it?
  • I uh have no idea. This was the last news item about the fire I found. It specifies that aerial assets were grounded temporarily, so I've just added "temporarily" to the sentence. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

• $9,400,000 → $9.4 million
  •  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• 3 percent → three percent per MOS:SPELL09
  •  Done 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• While the 2018 mountain peak closures specify that the burned foliage growth increases the risk of landslides, the 2017 source also includes this information, and it's more useful higher up so that the connection between the fire and landslides is immediately obvious
  • I do not understand this point. Where do you want me to move what? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

References

• All references are to reliable sources and are properly formatted

Other

• Earwig score looks good. Looking over the references, most "copied" sections are just proper nouns and statistical figures that can't be paraphrased.
• No stability concerns – primary editor is the nominator
• One image, relevant to article and Creative Commons licensed

General comments

Putting on hold for now. Please ping me once everything has been addressed. — GhostRiver 15:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@GhostRiver: As requested. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vami IV: I've made a couple additional tweaks. Passing now. — GhostRiver 16:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 16:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that smoke from the 2017 Boundary Fire could be seen from the Grand Canyon? Source: Cowan, Emery (June 9, 2017). "Kendrick Mountain fire triples in size, Highway 180 to remain closed". Arizona Daily Sun. Archived from the original on June 17, 2023. Retrieved June 17, 2023.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ford Strikers Riot

Good Article by Vami IV (talk). Self-nominated at 20:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Boundary Fire (2017); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Vami IV: Good Article, well sourced, no problems from copyvio, the one quotation has a citation, and the hook is interesting 🙂 My only concern is that the citation for the hook does not mention the Grand Canyon specifically. Is there a better citation for this hook that you can find before approving? Cheers! Johnson524 23:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oh, oops. Changed to one that does mention the smoke being visible from the Grand Canyon. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good now, cheers! Johnson524 01:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Vami IV and Johnson524: I do not think this hook passes the interesting component. The Grand Canyon is in AZ and the fire is in AZ. Unless we are talking about visibility from the other states? Bruxton (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know if people here are aware, but Vami died a few days ago (see User talk:Vami IV for further details). If this nomination could go smoothly through, it would be appreciated by all. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. Yes I was aware and am sad. I am no wording expert but suggest to say that this was a wildfire in national forests, perhaps even which, instead of just "fire", and perhaps without Grand Canyon at all, - better promote knowledge less familiar. First sentence of the lead for a starter:

  ALT1: ... that the Boundary Fire was a wildfire that burned 17,788 acres (7,199 ha) of the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests in Arizona?

  Also: a FAC for this article is open, reviews welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you @Gerda Arendt: That works for me. Bruxton (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Here's a suggestion that I think has more oomph:

  • ALT2: ... that the Boundary Fire, one of 2,321 wildfires in Arizona in 2017, burned 17,788 acres (7,199 ha) over 32 days?

  Bruxton? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  It works as well. I think I prefer ALT1 because it makes me want to learn about the national forests. Bruxton (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Boundary Fire (2017) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2024

Toralnob (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)i would like to remove a comma mark before "and"

 Not done for now: Where is the mentioned "and" located at? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2024 (2)

Please remove a comma before the word "and" and just keep it as it is in the below Sentence "The fire spread rapidly because of high temperatures, steep terrain, leftovers from a wildfire in 2000, and high wind speeds" Toralnob (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 11:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect temperatures listed

Flagstaff has never recorded a temperature in the 100's Fahrenheit, much less the 110's or 120's. 97'F is the current all-time high record temperature for Flagstaff, according to the National Weather Service. In fact, Phoenix rarely sees temperatures in the 120's, and that city is over 5500 feet lower in elevation than Flagstaff at ~7000 feet above sea level. If those elevations are seeing the 120's, we have no hope of survival, just sayin :-) Hope this can be updated by someone with permission. Thank you! BeeInNorthAZ (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The referenced article cited in the Background section reported a temperature of 93'F for Flagstaff, with the 120'F attributed to Yuma, AZ, one of the most uninhabitable and unpleasant areas in North America during the summer. Air conditioning is the one and only reason humans are able to survive in Yuma. BeeInNorthAZ (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Of course nature can be surprising sometimes, but 93 looks to be the correct number. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is it called the Boundary Fire?

I may have missed it in the article, but it's not entirely clear to me why the fire is officially called the "Boundary Fire". What does the "boundary" refer to? Is it in reference to a distinct place (such as with the 2018 fire), or is it in reference to something like the "boundary" between the two national forests listed in the article? JJonahJackalope (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@JJonahJackalope, to my recollection there were no RS that specifically discussed the reasoning behind the name. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

My memory is that is is because it is on the "boundary" between two national forests -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that's the obvious answer, but there's no RS that explicitly said so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)