Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sawmill Fire (2017)/archive1

< 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 promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 27 June 2022 [1].

Sawmill Fire (2017) edit

Nominator(s): –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some black comedy. The first (I'm pretty sure) wildfire caused by a gender reveal party, which resulted in the incineration of ~47,000 acres of Federal and Arizona state property in April 2017. I started this article in mid-2021 and soon thereafter got it through GAN - now I'm here to collect my first Four Award 😊 –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 17:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski edit

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • The lede is mostly good - should probably have some info about the total cost of the fire.
  • Same is true of the legal action. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • The article doesn't seem to mention anything about who actually set off the fire, other than it being a gender reveal party. Is this normal? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am confused; this is exactly what #Cause is about. The cause of the fire was a detonation at a gender reveal party of a target packed with tannerite,[4][5] a highly explosive substance,[6] by Dennis Dickey, an off-duty U.S. Border Patrol agent. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • about 100 civilians were evacuated and 100 others - what is other than a civilian? Is this military personnel? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to "area residents" and "people" both times I used the word "civilian. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • on 24–25 April - on 24 and 25 April per MOS:DATE, but as this is American, it might be April 24 and 25. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ~600 - can we change this to prose? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • made great progress - can we remove the "great"? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On May 1, 2017, command of the Sawmill Fire response effort was returned to the Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and BLM,[11][33] and the firefighters were demobilized.[33 - should probably be two sentences as the list has an additional and firefighters on the end. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In July 2017, lawmakers in Pima County proposed the ban of the possession, creation, and distribution of explosive targets in response to the Sawmill Fire and other fires caused by exploding targets. - this should probably be at the start of the para.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sure thing! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC edit

Staking my spot out, review to follow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is orthogonal to the FAC review, but it seems like this should be the primary topic for Sawmill Fire, as the current occupant there is only a redirect to a broad-scope article about 2016 California wildfires in general. (And if not, I think the disambiguation style for dated events is usually year first, as in "2017 Sawmill Fire", no?)
    • On review, I agree. I had remembered a bunch of links for the name from other California fires, intended for that 2016 system. But they seem to be gone now? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you can trim from "at first contain and then extinguish" to "contain and extinguish", as generally speaking one follows the other.
  • "who had shot the tannerite target and then cooperated with first responders" the second clause there feels weird. If his cooperation had anything to do with the charges, that should be explained (something like, "his charge was reduced to X because he cooperated"), otherwise it seems odd to throw into that sentence
    • While I agree, I included that to make the article less of a rag on Dickey. There's no way to talk about this even with the knowledge that he felt bad about this and cooperated with the authorities without coming down on him like a ton of bricks. But I didn't think it in the spirit of NPOV or BLP to not mention this. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You could rejigger lead para 2 a bit, something along the lines of "The fire was started by accident by Dickey, who immediately alerted emergency services and cooperated. US Attorney's Office investigated and charged him with blah blah." That takes the cooperation clause out of the charging sentence where it doesn't belong, and also emphasizes his acceptance of responsibility by putting it at the beginning of the paragraph. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it may be worth briefly explaining, for the lucky few who have no idea what a gender reveal party is, why on earth someone would be setting off high explosives at one
    • I am not so sure about this; should I explain why someone would do something dangerous and not entirely thought through at any party? What more can be said clinically here about the circumstances that led to this fire? Moreover the better article for detailing this ridiculous, dangerous, and frankly dumb phenomenon is Gender reveal party, I feel. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not talking about going into detail, but arguably someone who knows absolutely nothing about the concept of a gender reveal party is going to be lost without clicking through to another page. It doesn't hurt to throw in even something like "the target was intended to produce colored smoke" just to give some kind of clue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    mmmm okay. I've added that the target was packed with blue dye. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but their efforts were further hindered by the addition of the rough terrain" - I think you could trim to "were hindered by the rough terrain"
  • Do we know why the Red Cross shelters went unused? It's fine if not, just stood out as an interesting curiosity
  • What's a Type-II incident? Was this one? This should either be clarified for the reader or removed as it doesn't add much to understanding
  • "allowing the now about six-hundred firefighters present" - this feels awkward but I can't figure out how to reword it
  • Also, you have this in text but later use 800 in numerals - should be consistent, no?
  • What's a Type I team?
  • I'm not going to die on this hill, but I'm not sure the inflation conversions are needed for something that only happened 5 years ago
  • "Route 83 was reopened..." this whole sentence is a bit awkward. If the reopening and the evac order lifting happened on the same day, the date should be at the end of the sentence. Meanwhile, it feels like highway repairs belong in Aftermath
  • "Wind as fast as 45 miles..." expected when? Came when?
  • Honestly you could tighten this down a lot. Something like "Although winds reached up to 45 miles per hour on April Whatever, the fire had been fully contained and evacuation orders were lifted by April 30."
  • You explain BLM under aftermath, but it's first mentioned under Fire, so that should be moved
  • You could probably merge the firefighters being demobbed to the previous sentence, something like "command was returned to X Y Z and the firefighters were demobilized."
  • What's total foliage mortality and how does it differ from an area being burned in general?
  • You could ditch "There," in "There, he pled guilty"
  • I think "followed" is probably more accurate than "succeeded," as succeeded kind of implies taking the place of

Okay, that about wraps it up. You know me - if you disagree, we can discuss, etc etc. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missed one - "public conscience" in the lead should be "public's consciousness" ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay! All looks good to me now and I am pleased to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • "Firefighters began to pursue full suppression of the fire". This seems jargony. What does it actually mean?
  • "their efforts were further hindered by". Hindered further to what?
  • "~600". Use prose, not ~.
  • "the fire was fully contained and evacuation orders were lifted". Suggest 'the fire was fully contained and all evacuation orders were lifted'.

That's all. A nice little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done :) –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Nikkimaria edit

spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead indicates the fire was contained 30 May, the infobox indicates 1 May - which is correct?
    • It was not; I meant 30 April. Fixed now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, so if it was contained 30 April, why does the infobox indicate 1 May? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was when the firefighters were dismissed, as there was nothing for them to do. But my sources use 30 April, so I've revised the lead and infobox. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN2: this appears to be a republication and should be cited as such
  • FN9: if you're citing the updated version, it has a different publication date
    • I wasn't; removed the "UPDATED:" bit from the title. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN11: source lists different authors. Ditto FN51, please check throughout
  • FN44 should be changed to indicate that the original link is now dead
  • FN45: see WP:FORBESCON
  • FN47 author doesn't match source spelling - please check
  • FN52 should credit agency. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I've addressed your comments and await the spot-check. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the follow-up on FN11? It still doesn't match the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Addressed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Queries by WereSpielChequers edit

Interesting story, thanks for writing it, I'm almost tempted to suggest an April 1st FA candidate

  • Sources make it clear that the shooter was also the father, and presumably the creator of the target. But the wording could be interpreted as blaming the person who fired the shot rather than the person who made a target for explosive not just coloured die. I get that BLP applies, but have you thought of mentioning that the shooter was the father, I haven't checked all sources, I don't have access to at least two of them, but the sources I have looked at state he was the father and imply that he knew what was in the target.
  • I'm butting in a little here since I still have this on my watchlist, but the inclusion of explosive in the target was entirely on purpose, and the guy knew very well what he was firing at. The idea was to create an explosion of color that revealed to onlookers the sex of the baby (see for example the Tannerite website - they sell 'em premade and the video shows how they're supposed to turn out). He just didn't realize it was going to ignite the grass around it and turn into a great big conflagration. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added that Dennis Dickey was the father. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, yes once you add that the shooter was the father it is then obvious that he knew what was in the target. ϢereSpielChequers 06:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a minor difference between sources saying that he will pay $220,000 and $200,000 but given that the $200,000 figure was described as $100,000 plus $500 a month for twenty years, I'd be inclined to just go with the $220,000 figure you cite from here.
  • As the fire is now five years old it should be possible to update the aftermath to say how much of the ecosystems have recovered and whether the damaged trees and imperilled fish have come through. ϢereSpielChequers 17:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a quick search to this effect and come up with nothing. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for checking obviously if nothing is published there's nothing we can say. Shifting to Support ϢereSpielChequers 06:34, 15 June 2022 (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/Sawmill_Fire_(2017)/archive1&oldid=1095271243"