Talk:Freeway Complex Fire

Hangon rationale

the fire is causing major damage its not news its history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murrietavalley (talk • contribs) 10:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Updating fire damage and losses

I am awaiting a major news link for posting the Nov 16 update on damages from the Triangle Fire. Unfortunately my brother is incommunicado due to the fire (he lives a block from the now-evacuated evacuation center at Esperanza High School). And, of course, there are guidelines anyway on self-researched information. Hopefully the three fires so far will be all that occur. One small mention : there is a certain connotation to listing a fire as "in the city" (i.e. Yorba Linda), when in fact it is mainly the isolated hillsides with lots of space for tinder. The fire did in fact enter a highly-populated area south of the 91 on Friday (the apartments burned), but not the major business district.Dfoofnik (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice job! Mrmcdonnell (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Name for Fire Incident

This fire is officially called the "Freeway Complex Fire" and I suggest you make a new page and forward this one to it from this page. --Bluedv (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed incident name adding redirect to Freeway Complex Fire according to official records from the Orange County Fire Authority, City of Anaheim, FEMA, City of Corona, City of Chino Hills, Orange County Register, City of Diamond Bar and CALFIRE

References

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedv (talk • contribs) 23:19, 2008 November 29 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Freeway Complex Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080312185818/http://www.ocfa.org:80/pages/ocfa.asp?filename=newsreleases.asp to http://www.ocfa.org/pages/ocfa.asp?filename=newsreleases.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Quick fail. Has multiple valid cleanup tags [unreliable source][self-published source] and [dead link], some dating as far back as 2010. Another premature drive-by nomination by Zackmann08, who needs to put more effort into cleaning up articles before nominating them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: There was a huge cleanup done BEFORE I nominated the article. See the diff. I overlooked the cleanup tags on a couple of the references, but the article was significantly improved before I nominated it. Seems like those two tags are pretty small things that could be corrected as part of the review process. Not sure why you chose to adopt that attitude. It was clearly NOT a drive-by nomination. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

After I quick-failed two previous wildfire nominations for the same reason (this and this), and seeing this one made subsequently to those fails, I became less patient. You might consider turning on the visibility of hidden categories (under advanced options in the appearance preference pane); it would make it easier to spot these problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: and I tried to learn from those mistakes and took a considerable amount of time to improve this article. You "quick failed" because of two sources that have now been removed. Are you willing to assume good faith and review the article as it now sits? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If I were to do so, my first comment would be that the article seems quite incomplete: it is based only on contemporary news and firefighting reports, and has nothing from a time long enough after the fire to give some perspective on its consequences. It also has no material putting this fire into context with other fires from that fire season or that year (other than a see-also link): for instance, when did that area burn previously? Was there any overlap with other recent fires such as the Santiago Fire? Other questions the article raised but did not answer include: after the first day of the fire, what happened? When was it contained and when was it declared over? Were the schools closed because of fire danger, air quality, or some other reason, and for how long were they closed? Where were residents evacuated to, and for how long were they evacuated? How long were the freeways closed, and what sort of issues did this cause for transportation in the area more generally? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: thank you for the feedback. Those are excellent points! I will work to address them and consider re-nominating the page in the future. Appreciate your insight. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freeway Complex Fire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160623020722/http://www.ocfamedia.org/_uploads/PDF/fcfaar.pdf to http://www.ocfamedia.org/_uploads/PDF/fcfaar.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202080731/http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/sections/news/firecentral/ to http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/sections/news/firecentral/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)