Talk:Dollar Mountain Fire

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 CSJJ104 talk 17:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Sherman Creek watershed after the Dollar Mountain Fire

• ... that during the 1929 Dollar Mountain Fire (char pictured), 65 firefighters survived overnight being surrounded by fire by sheltering under a ledge?

• Source: https://www.doukhobor.org/pn-details56d0.html?rec=260 ...found themselves cut off and encircled by flames. They found refuge underneath an overhanging rocky ledge where they huddled...

https://lessons.wildfire.gov/incident/dollar-mountain-fire-multiple-incidents-1929 " On August 8, 1929, a crew of 65 of these firefighters was entrapped and spent the night in the black before all returned safely to camp the next morning"

• • ALT1: ... that fire behavior during the 1929 Dollar Mountain Fire (char pictured) was highly unpredictable? Source: Kurtz, M.V. (1941). "History of Colville National Forest History of the Colville National Forest Part II Page II-22 middle paragraph on Dollar mountain fire
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Oxtongue River

Moved to mainspace by Kevmin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 355 past nominations.

Kevmin § 17:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC).

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

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Some grammar problems in the lead, the second paragraph of background, both paragraphs of the fire section, and the aftermath section.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The hook seems a little too long, probably better like: "... that during the 1929 Dollar Mountain Fire (pictured), 65 firefighters survived overnight by hiding under a ledge?" But it's okay if you don't want to apply that. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The shortened version removes that they were surrounded by wildfire flames, and thus makes the hook much more mundane. In this case the flames were bad enough in the area the men were that everyone outside that area assumed no one could survive them.--Kevmin § 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The hook already states that it's a fire, but if you like, I'm also going to check if you fixed the grammar problems. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer: An event taking place in a 94,000–142,000 acres (147–222 sq mi) fire zone is not the same as an event like this happening at the fire line itself, having the "surrounded by fire" portion is important context. What grammar issues are you specifically seeing? (you know you are allowed to fix minor problems in articles you review right?) If you feel they are major, then inform the talk page or me so I can address them. Grammar (unless its completely unreadable English) is not a criteria that DYK noms are reviewed on, FYI.--Kevmin § 17:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Request new reviewer as @TheNuggeteer:has not responded for over 10 days.--Kevmin § 23:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Was going to tick this off, however I physically cannot read WP:PARAGRAPHs of that length. Please split them up.--Launchballer 18:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I've sliced up the two biggest paragraphs in as sensible manner as I was able to. Take a read now.--Kevmin § 19:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks better, although each paragraph requires a cite and I've moved a couple back. I want to take a look at this with fresh eyes first. I do know that I can't see where the article spells out that all 65 crew survived, and that ref #6 is giving a 403 error.--Launchballer 14:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Im not getting a 403 error with ref 6 which is the wildlands fire center, I was able to pull it up without any problem just now. I've added even more clarifying wording to the sentence stating all 65 walked out alive.--Kevmin § 16:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It's in the two sources I can see, so let's roll.--Launchballer 17:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

History of Colville National Forest citation

What pages does this citation cover? I'm seeing sentences like "In 1938 Civilian Conservation Corps workers living at Camp Growden ..." and don't know where to look for them in the source. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added several other tags to the article where I encountered issues and concerns. I used the |reason= parameter to note why. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@The ed17: That source is a National Forest Publication on the First 40 years of the Colville National Forest. This is another link to it. It rightly has chapters on The wildfire history of the NF, which is where the Dollar Mountain Burn citations are linking to, and details briefly the activity of the CCC.

In "Background"

• As to your specific notes, The bottom quote on II-20 The 5 in 1910 were bad ones; the Lost Creek Fire burned all summer and covered more territory than all the other fires on record. Which means the wording I used in article is downplaying the total acreage burned compared to the source.
• For the 1914-19 statement I changed the article wording the "one major" (major is stretching a bit at only 2,000 acres (87,000,000 sq ft) between 50 fires).
• I changed the wording of the 1922-1928 sentence to Fires were a summer regularity over years 1922-1928 with several "quieter" summers and several heavy summers.

In "fire"

• Example text I feel this is a bit of a "sky is blue" statement to be honest, the hot dry conditions with exceptionally low humidity and constant windy conditions are spelled out and windy conditions with a wildfire is the reason runs, blowouts of fires lines, spotting and side fires happen.
• Doukhobor Creek is a tributary of Barnaby Creek in the Barnaby Creek drainage flowing into Barnaby Creek between ledgerwood and Cottonwood creeks, extra topozone citation added
• 65 Dukhcbortsi were reported burned (reported dead) and only by good judgment of the overhead were thev brought out safely, trekking through miles of the burned near area to a place of transportation. Reported burned most likely means dead given the context of the other two sources used.

The citations to doukhobor.org are backed up with minor detail differences to Both the Colville National Forest Citation and the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center citation. I have used it as a supplementary source, with only the "rocky ledge" and the more definite assumption of death being taken more directly from it.

• I reworded the close paraphrasing and removed the grave mention as only citable to doukhobor websites, which you are leery of.--Kevmin § 16:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Re: the National Forest Publication, that is not the same source as the unpublished book titled History of Colville National Forest that is linked as a citation in the article. It looks like it includes the unpublished work and much more, and that may be why I couldn't verify down a lot of information used in the article. If that is indeed the work you used in creating the article, you should change the link and rewrite the citation to match. I'd recommend putting it in a bibliography section and using short citations to call out page numbers. (And probably chapter titles, in this instance? The unusual format makes it tricky to format cites well!) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The History of fire chapter is the same text between Rural heritage and the PDF (I know I checked both as I was working through your critiques from last night. I used the PDF version this morning as it has text that is Copy/paste-able (though not well transcribed due to the ink smudges).--Kevmin § 19:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. On what page does the information in the paragraphs beginning "Originally established in 1927 ..." and "In 1938 Civilian Conservation Corps workers living at Camp Growden ..." come from? Have I missed it in that chapter? The citation currently gives a four-page range, which I put in yesterday because the original citation only specified one page. If they're elsewhere in the book, they should have their own citations with their own page numbers and potentially different chapter authors. (To a point you made below -- this ask is not a FA requirement, but a basic tenet of WP:CITEHOW so people like me can follow the citations and verify the information in the article.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The information for "Originally established in 1927..." comes from page II-19 and the 1938 is on page II-38. I have created separate chapter references for each as you recommended.--Kevmin § 20:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Thank you! I appreciate that, and now see the source of my confusion. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't see that as sky is blue. If the sentence said "the fires spread quickly because of the hot/dry conditions," I'd agree with you. But the sentence as written links "hot and dry" to "unpredictable", and that's not blue sky to me. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

With Fire weather hot and dry plus wind (specifically also called out in the same sentence The precipitation during 1929 was far below normal; during August the humidity ranged from 6% to 10% with a dally wind from the south with high velocity.) are key elements for fire activity. This may be a local sky is blue issue, as I've lived/worked in the Columbia Basin and Okanogan Highlands all my life, and annual fire danger is a built in part of the culture.--Kevmin § 19:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll let this point go. I don't think it's best practice, but it's not a major concern. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"65 Doukhobor ..." – I think you didn't understand why I added that failed verification, which is my fault because I didn't put a |reason= in there. What source says this? It's currently cited to this, which doesn't support "presumed lost" or the quoted material. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The quote is from The CNF citation, which I though was there but appear to have missed, its now added, page II-22 is the source of the quote and ask what your interpretation of the full quote is? (in context of the Lessons reference and the now removed but much more blunt doukhobor history citation. (Not actually a genealogy website, a cultural heritage site for a refugee peoples.)--Kevmin § 19:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that. The previous links used in the article said "Doukhobor Genealogy Website" in the top left corner, which is why I called it that. I now see that main page has a much newer design and was presumably renamed "Doukhobor Heritage". Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@The ed17: What are your thoughts on the "thought dead" "reported burned", the gravity of the rest of the quote does not match a "burned but known to be alive" scenario from my reading of it.--Kevmin § 20:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that us having this conversation shows that it's a bit OR to assume intent of the text. Perhaps something like "It was feared that the entire crew had been overtaken by the fire, and one source noted all 65 surviving was "only by good judgement of the overhead"."? (Although on a separate question, what does overhead mean in this context? The trees?) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@The ed17: Without the more definite wording in the Doukhobor reference, it makes it more open. I see "the overhead" as a reference to god/Jesus/deity providing divine oversight. Its not wording you would expect from a situation where the men were safe but just burned. The alternate wording here is a good workaround to our situation.--Kevmin § 19:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not "leery" of doukhobor.org—I just don't see how it meets the standards at WP:RS, especially WP:SPS, and I was surprised to see it was used at all. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Please keep in mind this is not a Featured article nomination, but a new article from scratch, coming though DYK, and as noted the heritage sites are broad histories of a refugee peoples. Never the less I removed the heritage citations even though I feel it meets the sections of "secondary" as outlined in self-published, eg that its not extraordinary information being attributed to it and the data conforms to the other two sources with only small deviation.--Kevmin § 19:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:V is a core content policy and one of Wikipedia's most basic principles. It applies to all articles regardless of quality... WP:SPS has a carve out for self-published sites, so I would look to see if there is evidence to demonstrate that its author is "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Otherwise, it can't be used on Wikipedia. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm, this book bio is likely supplied by Jonathan j. Kalmakoff as its similar to his bio here, he does have news out coverage, but few google.scholar hits that arent linked to the website. its a gray area.--Kevmin § 21:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence, unfortunately. Those books look like they are self-published. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

thats what I was leaning towards as well, sadly. His site was the most definite in how the 65 men were presumed dead, hence the original wording here.--Kevmin § 19:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

How does Topozone meet RS? You might be able to cite a USGS map directly instead.Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

In what way does Topozone fail RS? It actively is a searchable form of USGS topographic map and has partnered with the USGS on map generation. I have searched Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources plus its archives with no results that its unreliable. The USGS map for Barnaby Creek doesn't immediately show the tributary creeks, so one has to zoom in and go upstream to find --Kevmin § 19:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

If it's a map straight from the USGS, we should probably cite the USGS and use the Topozone URL as a convenience link. Regardless, I did a quick Google Scholar and Google Books search and will back down on this. That it's partnered with the USGS and hasn't been discussed at RSN previously doesn't mean much to RS, but I imagine the academic use meets WP:UBO. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I swapped in the waterdata.usgs watershed entry for Barnaby creek to avoid unneeded "nebulousness" feeling and CONLINKing. Its not my preferred as its less precise for immediately showing Doukhobor Creeks confluence with Barnaby Creek, but hte USGS does shade the outline of the watershed, so Doukhobor Creek is included once the user scrolls to it.--Kevmin § 20:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

That works too! I made an edit to make sure we're showing how the map supports the info in the article. It's probably skating close to WP:SYNTH, but it works. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Geofeatures are a hard group to write on, as there are often obvious features including whole mountains with half a face removed by glaciers (Gibraltar Mountain across the valley from Republic, Washington) that no-one has actually Written anything on.--Kevmin § 19:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Forgot to ping on the above. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@The ed17: ping missing seems contagious ;) --Kevmin § 19:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)