Talk:KNP Complex Fire

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 07:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll get a review posted for this within the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time! Penitentes (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Penitentes, I've posted the review below. In some areas, the prose is really good. Like, impressively good. But there are also some areas that could be made more concise or more closely follow Wikipedia's best practices. I also have some questions and comments about the use of sources, particularly in regard to close paraphrasing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Wow–I really appreciate both the speed and the specificity of your review. Concision is definitely not my strongest suit and the close paraphrasing comments are probably down to, as you suggest, struggling to find ways to describe the same series of events from one or two primary sources without falling into jargon. I'll rework those parts heavily.

Thanks for the detailed breakdown: I'll address/resolve the concerns comment-by-comment over the next few days! Penitentes (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien Hello–I'm still working to address the close paraphrasing concerns and would love an additional day or two to go through it all! Work has been busy. But if that's not possible, I am very happy with the useful feedback you've given and the article is already much better for it, in my opinion. Penitentes (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no hard deadline. I'm expecting the article will pass once the close paraphrasing and maybe any other necessary copyediting is taken care of. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Penitentes Checking in as it's been a week since the last comment here. I see you've been doing some good work on the article. Again, there's no rush and it's fine for the review to stay open while progress is being made, but do you have a general timeframe in mind? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi T.B.U.A, thanks for checking in. I would love to wrap the review up in the next few days (self-imposed deadline of the end of the weekend?) I think I am juuuuust about done with the paraphrasing work, and at this point I am mostly adding a few secondary sources to address the reliant-on-primary-sources concerns. If that sounds acceptable let me know. Penitentes (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, just let me know whenever you're ready for me to give it one last look. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey Tbua, hope you've had a lovely holiday weekend. I think I'm ready for the last look! Penitentes (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

General notes:

• There's a lot of visual language and more complex wording, but I think for the most part it's used carefully and it works to the article's strength. I'll specify exceptions below.
• Some of the headings are a bit long or redundant, but I'll go into details below.
• Four sentences start with "However". Generally, this word doesn't add anything and can be removed. But note that one is in a quote and should not be altered.

 Done - Agreed and removed (except for the quote). I've saved this tip for future reference. Penitentes (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• continued to grow is used four times. "grew" is more concise. Same with continued to move versus "moved".

 Done - All instances removed/reworded. Saved for future reference since I seem prone to this! Penitentes (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Background factors:

• Could this heading be reduced just to "background" or "factors"?

 Done - Reduced to 'Background'. Penitentes (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• There are a few one-paragraph subsections here. It might be worth it to delete the subheadings entirely and just have a five-paragraph section.

 Done - Subheadings removed. Penitentes (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• In the past several decades, – This is a relative timeframe. Specify that it's the decades prior to this particular event.

 Done - Specified. Penitentes (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• precipitation (rain or snow) – We can trust the reader to know what precipitation means, or failing that, to look it up.

 Done - Removed parenthetical. Penitentes (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Is there a good reason why Template:Clear is being used in this section? It creates a massive gap on my screen.

 Done - It was originally there to fix a formatting issue with the image for this section on desktop that has somehow now disappeared–I don't see the gap on mobile or desktop but it definitely isn't needed anymore. Removed. Penitentes (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Exclusion of fire – It's not clear what this subheading means until after reading the section.

 Done - Subheading removed, since it was only 1 paragraph anyway. Penitentes (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• added to a surfeit of fuels – maybe "excess" instead of "surfeit".

 Done - Rephrased. Penitentes (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• The whole "exclusion of fire" paragraph is kind of hard to follow. The first sentence should be a clear statement about the buildup of flammable material, and then get into details about the when and how. Also make it clear that smaller fires help clear out flammable material and that this is done intentionally; the paragraph never actually says these things. Right now, caused by lightning or set by indigenous inhabitants just makes it sound like the indigenous inhabitants had arsonists among them.

 Done - This was helpful; I think this was one of those paragraphs that got written from the inside-out and over several weeks/months. I went through and rearranged sentences/phrases and rewrote where applicable, and I think it accommodates your suggestions. I also added two more supporting secondary sources to reduce the reliance on the NPS report there. Penitentes (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• such fires were prohibited and routinely extinguished – After reading the previous sentence, "prohibited" makes it sound like California banned lightning.

 Done - I'm sure the CA legislature has tried. Rephrased! Penitentes (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• This practice created elevated fuel loads – This might be confusing because this "practice" is essentially preventing another practice. Clarify that it's the lack of fires that led to buildup.

 Done - Rephrased. Penitentes (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Then, in the months preceding the fire – "Then" is unnecessary if we're starting a new paragraph or a new section.

 Done - Rephrased. Penitentes (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• water year (the period between October 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021) – Does "water year" need to be defined, especially since it's wikilinked? Maybe it can just say "its second-driest water year in 2020–2021". Likewise for "meteorological summer".

 Done - Good point, rewrote accordingly. Penitentes (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• though thousands of feet below Sequoia National Park – This makes it sound like it's underground. Clarify that it's a lower altitude.

 Done - Clarified. Penitentes (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• notched 64 days on which – "notched" feels informal. "in which" instead of "on which".

 Done - Fixed. Penitentes (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• helped fuel moistures reach – "fuel moistures" might need rewording so it's clearer what it's referring to.

 Done - Rephrased. Penitentes (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Fire progression:

• The heading doesn't need to repeat information from the article title. The reader knows it's a fire, so it can just say "progression".

 Done Penitentes (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• and personnel quickly set to work – "quickly" can be dropped without changing the meaning

 Done - Rephrased. Penitentes (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• a preponderance of – This can be removed. I'm not necessarily opposed to the wording, but this use doesn't add anything and it affects readability

 Done - Removed. Penitentes (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• As a result – "Because"?

 Done Much better! Penitentes (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Colony and Paradise fires merge – This could be simplified to "Merge".

 Done Penitentes (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• fires finally met – "finally" can be cut.

 Done Penitentes (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• "extreme head fire run" – If this is a quote, it should be clear whose analysis this is. Otherwise it should be paraphrased.

 Done - Clarified that it's a quote from the Park Service post-fire assessment. Penitentes (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• keeping a lid on the fire – Is this a technical term?

 Done - No, it's a common but informal metaphor for what inversions do to fire behavior, but I already mention the inversion and so it can be/should be/has been cut. Penitentes (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• by about several thousand acres per day – "several" is already an approximation, so "about" is unnecessary.

 Done - Good catch. Penitentes (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Fire impacts Redwood Canyon and Redwood Mountain Grove – This subheading is wordy. "Fire impacts" can be cut.

 Done Penitentes (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• But smoky conditions kept – Cut but

 Done Penitentes (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Officials hashed out plans – Informal

 Done - Replaced with 'Officials decided'. Penitentes (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Favorable weather arrives – A subheading shouldn't have a subject and a predicate.

 Done - Cut 'arrives'. Penitentes (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• The other subsections do really well at summary style writing (better than most articles), but the favorable weather section reads like a bulleted timeline that was compressed into prose, which is a common problem for articles about events

True enough, this is where I ran out of energy to summarize expansively. It shows - I'll keep working on this. Penitentes (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done - I have added another reference or two, trimmed some awkward portions, and added a little prose to make it flow better. Penitentes (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• a wetting rain – The reader can assume that the rain is wetting.

 Done - Cut 'a wetting'. Penitentes (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• a significant atmospheric river – Who decides that it's "significant"?

 Done - I was searching for a different word to use from the AP reference supporting that sentence, which uses "powerful" ("staggering" and "insane" are used to describe the rainfall totals, but only in quotes). Replaced 'significant' with 'strong'. Penitentes (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Indeed, by late October – "Indeed" can be cut.

 Done - Penitentes (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Giant sequoia impacts:

• The section heading here can just be "giant sequoias".

 Done - Penitentes (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• and even helps them reproduce – It's not clear how this is relevant or what is implied by "even".

 Done - This was a sentence fragment that I forgot to delete while editing. It referred to the fact that lower-intensity fires not only did not harm giant sequoias but were in fact necessary for successful reproduction. I decided that wasn't necessary to emphasize but somehow missed this part. Removed Penitentes (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Giant sequoia groves witnessed wildfires of low or moderate severity frequently – Is this just a general thing that happens? If so, it can be written in present tense.

 Done - This was a general thing that happened, but no longer really does (as the Background section explains, small and frequent fires in Sierra forests disappeared with the advent of national fire suppression policies). I shortened the entire sentence so it gets more to the point: "Historically, giant sequoia groves had a fire return interval of approximately 15 years, and so long-lived giant sequoias might see dozens of wildfires throughout their lifetimes." Let me know if you think this helps! Penitentes (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• mentioned above – The article shouldn't reference itself.

 Done - Removed. Penitentes (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• several sustained hits – Is there a more technical term that can be used than "hits"? Also, in what sense is "sustained" being used here? It threw me off while I was reading.

 Done - Rephrased to 'were affected by'. Penitentes (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• on Facebook on – This reads awkwardly.

 Done - Removed the second 'on' ("on October 6..."), since the timeframe is already established at the beginning of the sentence. Penitentes (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• of the large sequoia population – While virtually all sequoias are in California, a reader who doesn't know this might be confused as to whether it refers to California's sequoia population or the global sequoia population.

 Done - Clarified that it refers to the world's population (since the Sierra is its entire native range); also added three supporting secondary sources for this claim and the subsequent claim about up to 19% of the global population being lost in 2020–2021. Penitentes (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• In response to the growing wildfire threat – According to whom is this a "threat"? Articles shouldn't decide that things are threats, even if they are.

 Done - Removed. Penitentes (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• on the grounds that language in it removed too many guardrails on potentially harmful activities like logging in sequoia groves, and that it minimized community involvement – Make it clear that this is the opinion of environmental groups. Even better if specific opinions can be attributed to specific groups.

 Done - Clarified this by citing the actual letter the environmental groups wrote jointly and including a quote from it (that The Hill reference also quoted) to more accurately characterize the groups' position on the bill. Penitentes (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• announced that it would immediately begin – Can "immediately" be cut?

 Done - Penitentes (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Other impacts:

• Just a personal preference, but "effects" sounds more formal to me than "impacts". I would just suggest "aftermath", but there's aftermath content in the giant sequoia section as well, and it's fine divided as it is.

 Done - Changed to 'Effects'. Penitentes (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Some of the subsections here are really short. "Casualties" and "Closures" probably don't need to be separate sections, and "Environmental impacts" doesn't need level four headings. Basically, there's no need for one-paragraph sections.

 Done - Eliminated subheadings for all the single-paragraph sections. Penitentes (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• On October 11, another firefighter was struck by a falling rock – Any update on what happened to them?

 Done - I couldn't find any sources following up on their injury, but I have now included that the firefighter was expected to be okay following the hospitalization (this was already mentioned in one of the existing references). Penitentes (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• burned to the ground – This seems informal.

 Done - Removed "to the ground". Penitentes (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Three sentences in a row use the word "also" when listing things that were damaged.

 Done - Removed/rephrased. Penitentes (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• the aforementioned giant sequoia mortality – The article should not reference itself.

 Done - Removed. Penitentes (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• the fisher's listing decision – This wording makes it sound like the fisher made the decision.

 Done - Rephrased. Penitentes (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• of critical fisher habitat – Is "critical habitat" a specific classification or a subjective analysis?

 Done - Specific classification from the NPS reference downstream of the sentence, though it is called "proposed". Penitentes (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not 100% sure on this one, but should the three uses of "severities" be plural? I would have just used "moderate to high severity".

 Done - Changed to singular and combined moderate and high percentages. Penitentes (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Mudslides in the fire scar caused road closures on the Generals Highway in the fall of 2022 – This would probably fit better with the other closures rather than environmental effects.

 Done - Agreed, I moved it to the closures paragraph. Ditto for the mention of washouts and culvert damage, which caused closures in 2023. Penitentes (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• the air quality index (AQI) – An acronym doesn't need to be defined if it's not used again.

 Done - Noted and removed! Penitentes (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

• The sourcing in this article isn't ideal: they seem to be exclusively primary sources. An academic database search shows that there are already a good number of secondary sources from 2022–2023, so it's not a notability issue. With that said, all of the sources are reliable, and that's sufficient for GA. No immediate changes are needed, though I'd suggest finding different sources if you wanted to take this to FA.

Thanks, this was helpful to know. I know you said no immediate changes were needed but as I worked on the rest of the comments I tried to begin adding secondary sources to supplement the existing ones (4 or 5 news articles so far). It will take a lot of time to do that for the rest of the article, but I'd like to continue that after this review closes. Penitentes (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• There are quite a few cases where it looks like WP:Close paraphrasing. For example, as low as 60,000 appear verbatim in both the article and the source, and but was caught by fire crews digging lines by hand is clearly copying the wording of but was caught by crews securing handline around the fires edge. I'm inclined to give this article more leeway when it's describing reports of the fire because that's a basic series of events, but the wording is still too similar in some areas. When writing an article, instead of copying the information from the source to the article, try to take purely the core ideas and facts, understand them, and then write your own summary of what you found in the source. For this article, I suggest running an WP:EARWIG scan, and then comparing with each source and rephrasing any sentence where it catches something more than a proper noun. Otherwise, potential plagiarism issues will keep the article from being promoted.

 Done - I followed your advice with the Earwig scans and it's knocked the % similarity figures down a good bit for all of the highlighted links. I believe everything that is flagged in the top 10 or so links is either (1) a quote, (2) a noun, or (3) essentially un-rephrase-able (less of these, but I couldn't figure out a different way to say "east of the Pacific Crest Trail" without contorting it too much). I my have missed something but I think it is in much better shape. Thank you for flagging this issue for me. Penitentes (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• This trend, driven by climate change, has helped produce hotter and more severe droughts – This is the kind of statement where you'd want to have citations right at the end of the sentence, even if it results in duplication. And it's not required, but I'd suggest one more high quality source linking climate change to the weather changes in California.

 Done - Reworded this paragraph slightly so the nature of the connection is less ambiguous. I re-cited the NPS climate change reference directly after the statement in question and added another two high-quality secondary source references (National Geographic and Scientific American). Penitentes (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• The KNP Complex Fire bore this threat out – Does this source specifically connect the KNP Complex Fire to the NPS assessment? If not, we shouldn't create this connection ourselves. Alternatively, if the NPS source itself connects the two, then that source can just be moved down to cover this sentence.

 Done - Removed. Penitentes (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Rather than check them all, I'm just going to ask: for the list of groves impacted, do the two citations cover everything in the table, including the comments?

 Done - Yes, and in fact they're duplicative of each other, so I removed one of them. The single citation covers everything. I made sure to indicate that the "extreme head fire run" quote is clearly attributed to the same source in the comment for Suwanee Grove. Penitentes (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• If the paragraph under "fire growth and containment" is exclusively describing the table, then it doesn't need a citation. But Acreage increases may be due to firing operations as well as natural fire growth extends beyond that and might need to be sourced. And side note, as it accompanies a table, I believe this is a valid exception to "avoid self-reference".

 Done - Removed. Penitentes (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Spot checks:

• Wigglesworth (Sep 25) – What part supports and Ash Mountain areas? Otherwise good.

 Done Cited InciWeb update for that day to support the Ash Mountain part. Penitentes (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• NPS (Sep 21) – Is there any reason the prose gives 25,000 as the exact value instead of 25,147?

 Done - I prefer to occasionally use round numbers for large milestones so as not to burden the reader with endless strings of precise figures (easier to say 25k acres by day x, 50k by day y, 75k by day z, etc.), but forgot to insert a modifier here. Now it reads "just over 25,000." If you think exact values are always preferable I'm happy to run through and change them! Penitentes (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• NPS (Oct 7) – Good.
• Rodriguez (Oct 27) – Good.
• Seidman (Nov 26) – Good.

Spot checks are good. I noticed close paraphrasing issues, but I've addressed those more broadly above.

Broad in its coverage

The article covers all of the aspects I'd expect of this type of article (background, events, and impacts). It does not go into excessive detail.

Neutral

Only a few minor wording issues, but they're addressed under criterion 1. No ideas are given undue weight.

Stable

No recent disputes.

Illustrated

Most images are public domain as works of the U.S. federal government. The remaining images are all licensed for free use. All images have useful captions. Great work on the fire area maps you've made; that sort of thing is really valuable.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.