Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frye Fire/archive1

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) 3 February 2023 [1].

Frye Fire

Nominator(s): –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 09:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing (or I guess beginning) my series on contemporary wildfires in the state of Arizona, I would like to present for consideration for Featured-dom this, the Frye Fire of 2017. This was a fire that scarred almost 48,000 acres of the Coronado National Forest that hadn't burned for more than 10 years. It also almost became an extinction event for an endemic and very threatened species of squirrel and has had lasting environmental consequences for the people of Graham County, Arizona. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 09:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steelkamp

"and allocated another $200,000 ($221,097, adjusted for inflation) for containing the wildfires." What does "another" mean? Was there money allocated previously to containing the fire?

This is complicated. The answer is yes, because wildfires are fought with state and federal budgets. As I understand, however, there was some concern that the fiscal year in which the fire was burning couldn't cover its costs, so Governor Ducey declared a state of emergency to ensure that there was some money to keep throwing at it . –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Recreational areas began reopening on July 13." Recreational areas where?

Clarified. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"firefighting officials decided on June 16 to quarantine personnel showing strep throat symptoms, began regular testing for strep throat, and mandated regular disinfection of equipment." Should that be "begin" instead of "began"?

Corrected. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a good idea to link to Burned area emergency response?

I'm surprised that this eluded me. Link added. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the environmental and civic risks posed by Frye Fire's burn scar." Should a "the" be added in front of "Frye Fire's" there?

Yes; added. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should "denuded" be linked? It's not really a common term.

I've rephrased this sentence. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"On July 19 those monsoon rains had arrived". Should that be "On July 19 those monsoon rains arrived", or maybe "By July 19 those monsoon rains had arrived".

Went with something akin to the latter. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"and the closure on July 31 on Arizona State Route 366 (SR 366) after it was damaged by runoff." How about "and the closure on July 31 of Arizona State Route 366 (SR 366) after it was damaged by runoff."

Oops. Corrected. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't BAER be stated after Burned Area Response Team? I didn't do this myself because there is already a comment within the page's source code for this and I'm unsure what that's about.

Yes; I had it commented it out in case I needed it, and forgot to uncomment it. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"57,000 lb (26,000 kg) of sterile barley seeds were dropped over this area by August 10." It would be better if this sentence didn't begin with a number.

Done. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"was demolished to remove that blockage". What blockage?

Reworded. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management". Is a red link applicable here? Surely this should become an article one day.

Probably; added. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Effect on Mount Graham red squirrel". Should that be changed to "Effect on the Mount Graham red squirrel"?

Done. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Steelkamp (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Steelkamp (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Frye_Fire_432_11highlight_pan_crop_15_(34948002573).jpg: see WP:WATERMARK. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image removed. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 06:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am now looking into replacing this image with this one from the Bureau of Land Management. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 06:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Added. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 07:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

I hope to leave some comments soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epicgenius, did you still want to review? No pressure, we have a reasonable amount of commentary now, but don't want to deprive you of the opportunity if you're still interested... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose, no problem. I was busy for the past week, but I can take a look soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Checking in. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 05:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that.

Lead:

"September 1" - There's an extra-wide space here for some reason.

Oops. Fixed. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"as a result of an outbreak of strep throat." - Why not "as a result of a strep throat outbreak"?

Adopted. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The fire particularly impacted the endangered Mount Graham red squirrel, whose remaining habitat on Mount Graham was devastated by the fire." - The sentence begins and ends with "the fire", which I feel is a little redundant as well as repetitive.

Axed that second "the fire". –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

"The State of Arizona" - Unless it's referring to the government of Arizona, "state" should be lowercase.

I am referring to the state government there. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. In this case, no change is technically required (I personally would clarify that it's the state government, but the current wording is not incorrect). Epicgenius (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"By August 2017, the 2017 season had burned the most amount of land since the 2011 season" - A few things here:
- "By August 2017, the 2017 season" is repetitive.

Removed the second 2017. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- This makes it sound like the season has burned the land, rather than the land burning during the season.

Reworded. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- "Most amount of land" is unnecessarily wordy, as you can just say "most land" or "most area".

Condensed. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"than the average of the previous ten years" - Than the average for the previous ten years?

No; average of, per source. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Epicgenius (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fire:

Is the VATT part of the MGIO?

Yes. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"declared a state of emergency in Graham County" - Graham County being where Mount Graham is located?

Yes. I've made this clearer in the article. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the Frye Fire grew in size from 38,395 acres (15,538 ha)" - "In size" seems redundant to me, given the fact that you mention acreage immediately afterward.

Removed. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"By July 17 the fire had not grown in size" - I'd suggest "had not grown further".

Done. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath:

"Graham County officials issued warnings about severe, damaging floods within Graham County" - Mentioning the name of the county twice also seems a bit redundant, especially since Graham County officials are unlikely to issue warnings for other counties.

Removed second mention of Graham County. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Within the Coronado National Forest, the USFS and Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management began in July 2021 to employ inmates from the Fort Grant state prison in a three-year project to restore trails on Mount Graham" - Did the project start in July 2021, or was the project already ongoing when the inmates were employed at that time?

The project started in July 2021; I have reworded the sentence to make this clearer. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All my comments have been adequately addressed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

Also staking out a claim. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Harry's suggestion for a small background section is a wise one. I've found them very helpful in establishing context for my articles.
- Done? What do you think? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks good
Noticing some passive voice in the lead
- "No fatalities resulted from the fire" - passive voice. you could also simplify to "there were no fatalities", the fire is implied from context
- "Three structures were destroyed by" - passive voice
- Lead activated. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - 😂 ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fire

"in which the Frye Fire was burning" - this clause feels awkward. Can we introduce the national forest earlier, maybe in the first sentence?

Done. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Coronado Forest begin suppression efforts or did the forest service? I guess it means the organization that manages the forest, but it reads a bit oddly.

Addressed. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like your sentences are sometimes overstuffed/knotted up with clauses. I tweaked one here, if that helps show what I mean.
"The burned area..." - here we go from area, to # of firefighters, back to area. Can we separate the firefighters here? It reads confusingly.

I have removed the clause about the firefighters. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can separate the sentences about the fire's size on June 20 and the smoke reaching Tucson. I also think it would be helpful to include the approximate distance to Tucson. IMO this is not OR as it's a routine calculation.
- Removed the mention of smoke entirely. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't understand why, I think it's relevant. I just think the distance helps the reader understand the significance better - like, if the smoke is reaching a major city one mile away that's a lot less crazy than if it's hitting like, 100 miles away. (I'm not gonna oppose over the removal I just don't think I understand it). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discrepancy between the lead, which says 69 were quarantined, and the body, which says 62

As it turns out, both those numbers were wrong! 63 people were quarantined. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Although 300 people..." - I'm not sure the "although" works here. "Although" introduces a thing that happens in spite of something else, in the vein of "although I don't like pie, this one was good". In this case, the fact that the plague ended June 16 doesn't necessarily follow as happening in spite of the number of people exposed and quarantined.

Removed. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

"The Ash Creek flooding threatened, on August 11," - This doesn't need to be a clause offset by comments, it's cleaner to start the sentence with it and lose the commas

Done as suggested. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did they drop sterile barley seeds if they're trying to regrow the area?

Clarified. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, turns out that's the remainder of my commentary. Another piece of solid work from you, Vami :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me, so I'm pleased to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

The date should be in the first sentence to assist with identification of the subject. Suggest mostly flipping the order of the first two sentences.

I've moved the dates around and cut and modified some sentences. How does it look now? –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

posed an existential threat suggest just "threatened" the threat was obviously existential so the extra words don't convey any more meaning

Condensed per suggestion. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over 800 firefighters worked to contain and then extinguish the Frye Fire at a cost of $26,000,000 Reads like each firefighter was purchased for $32,500. Is that the total cost of the firefighting effort, the cost of the damage caused, the firefighters' wages, or something else?

That was the total cost of fighting the fire; I have rearranged this sentence to convey this. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Frye Fire had immediate and lasting environmental consequences. Redundant. Those are essentially the only types of consequence

Removed. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph of background might be useful. I was hoping to find about something about the area, how common fires are in that part of the world, whether they're natural phenomena or human-exacerbated, whether any mitigation measures were in place, perhaps whether they're getting more frequent with climate change (if there are sources to that effect). Placing the subject in context (1b).

In brief, wildfires are a common and natural part of the ecosystem of Arizona, but they have been exacerbated by climate change and overzealous firefighting over the past century. Where possible, I do like to include notes on local conditions prior to the fire (see Sawmill Fire (2017), an FA, and Tinder Fire, a work in progress) for context. Often times, though, RS don't discuss these things; I can only make note of those conditions for the Tinder Fire because the Coconino National Forest (which it burned through) has a page on it. I have in the past tried to track down things like National Weather Service advisories, but was unsuccessful; what I can do is very much decided by whether or not someone has written about something related to the fire beyond its size and containment (figures lifted from InciWeb statements, which often don't get archived), and/or whether or not someone has archived that material. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now, regarding frequency and external factors, I think that would be a better fit on the dedicated "season in review" article; in this case, 2017 Arizona wildfires, which has not been written yet. I am collecting material now for 2017 Arizona wildfires and 2018 Arizona wildfires. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that from reading this article the reader doesn't know that fires are a common and natural occurrence in Arizona, nor that there were multiple similar fires in 2017 and more in 2018. I get that there might not be sources for all the details we'd like but a little bit of context is necessary and helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: I have provided a background section. What do you think? –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 07:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

airborne particulates reached Tucson roughly how far away is Tuscon?

I do not know. RS did not make a note of this, I suspect because they are based in Arizona. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From June 27 to July 12, when firefighters achieved 88% containment of the Frye Fire's spread, it grew in size from 38,395 acres (15,538 ha) to 48,443 acres (19,604 ha) That's quite a complicated sentence and puts the containment in front of the spread. Suggest re-casting as two sentences. Also, spell out "percent" per MOS:%.

Done. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in response to the 2017 Arizona wildfires It hasn't previously been mentioned that this is part of a larger series of fires so this is quite surprising to the reader; something else that could be covered with a well-thought-out background section.

I'll see what I can do. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and allocated another $200,000 in addition to what? This is the first mention of money in the body.

Reworded. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

firefighting officials decided on June 16 to quarantine Do we have a better description than "firefighting officials", which is very journalistic? If not, the use of passive voice might be worth considering (something I normally advocate against in FACs).

No, not really. The document is written for firefighters, so it's pretty jargon-y, and I don't know which organization those officials were a part of. I have reworded this sentence, too. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"decided to quarantine" → quarantined. Tighter prose and the quarantine should be the subject of the sentence, rather than the decision (which can be inferred to have been taken).

Done. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

officials issued warnings same concern about "officials" as above; if possible, name the agency the warnings came from

Done. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

began sending surface runoff → sent for concision, though I'd prefer a better verb (not sure rainwater "sends" anything)

Replaced with "washed". –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

because of this decimation, loss of habitat, predation This takes the reader by surprise as you haven't specified what the effect of the fire was. You then have a list of four threats, two of which don't seem to be related to the fire. Are you saying that that the near-extinction was because of squirrels dying in the fire, or because of habitat destruction? If so, you should state this explicitly.

Rectified. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No plausible links for a "see also"? Like a list of fires or articles on similar fires?

They're contained in the navbox at the bottom of the article. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, have you reviewed all responses/actions? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, I've only been able to edit from my phone for a few days. I like the background section; it gives the context that helps the reader understand the subject. There are nits that I could pick but nothing important. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Guerillero

Pyne 2006 has the ISBN wonky

Oops. Fixed. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 21:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is New Mexico In Depth a high quality RS?

It's a small-time online paper pertaining to New Mexico, publishing journalists with work in bigger papers like The New York Times (Ted Alcorn). Not very controversial. They appear to have a single editor, though. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 21:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not my favorite, but I can live with it being in an FA. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Wildland Fire Lessons Learned a high quality RS?

WFLL is a federally-funded research database. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 21:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I will accept it --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is International Fire Fighter a high quality RS?

I had never heard of IFF or it's publisher before writing this article, but I had heard of its author; Bill Gabbert is a former firefighter who runs two websites that I only refrain from citing because they're SPS. He's got very good coverage of fires and, as a former firefighter, covers them well. –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 21:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Guerillero and I discovered that Gabbert has been quoted by CNN, ABC, Colorado Public Radio, and Oregon Public Broadcast, among other online publications. He's also quoted in a buncha local newspapers covering fires (examples found by Guerillero on Newspapers.com: 1, 2, 3, 4). –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 21:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) After talking with you about this, I have come to the conclusion that Bill Gabbert is a SME about wildfires. See quotes in Knoxville News-Sentinel Rapid City Journal Rapid City Journal Ravalli Republic Arizona Republic Montana Standard over the past decade. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on my source review. The online paper isn't a make or break issue. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 3 February 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.