Talk:Wildfire/Archive 1

Firestorms in war
Should the Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II be mentioned? To my mind (Eurocentric I admit) it's one of the most famous firestorms in history. Man-made and urban firestorms are not mentioned. The Great Fire of London is another example of an urban firestorm. 194.74.200.66 09:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would this be mentioned on the "wildfire" page? There's a separate page for "firestorm".--76.102.179.122 06:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Top
I wish someone could restore the other picture to the article. Certainly we could have more than one picture. Rmhermen 14:23, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

-

I have a problem with the caption -- there's no way that this picture was taken from the International Space Station. I know omg, i need this website of wildfires for a project and i need pictures, not fake one.....kkoooll

Fire in San Bernadino Mountains

66.153.56.194 02:05, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It says that's where it was taken from here: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=11805 - Evil saltine 06:42, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I e-mailed the NASA contact on that web page and a human confirmed it was taken from the ISS.  Tempshill 15:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the listing of famous wildfires be moved to the List of historic fires?Rsduhamel 07:28, 23 September 2004 (UTC)

Nice PD photo of an Italian helicopter filling up its water bag from a pool here.

Too Many Images
In my totally unconsidered opinion, there are a few too many images at the top of this page, resulting in the text being seriously warped. Can't we spread them out a bit? --Orborde 02:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, there are quite a few large images and not that much text. However, I do agree with your diagnosis, so if you can find a better arrangement, go ahead. Change image sizes as well if need be. Rl 07:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Camper
 * I spent a little bit of time cleaning up the article and shrinking images. It should not appear to be as crowded as it was before.

ha to km² to acres
Please be careful with units in the text. For instance, in Portugal, all of them were wrong. I just updated it. Hope everything's OK now. Sorry for my bad english...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.92.68 (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Problems with Info
In the first paragraph, you say that large forest fires are caused by "drought and prevention of small fires". How is that possible? Shouldn't you stop the small fires from getting big?


 * The idea is that if small forest fires occur regularly, then they clean out all the fuel. If you put them out for years on end, all fuel accumulates for 20 years or more. Then when you do have a fire, it gets really huge really fast. -Lommer | talk 18:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The article needs a much better explanation, something like http://www.alternet.org/story/17066/ or a link to that. --Espoo 06:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Minor rewording
"The risk of major wildfires can be reduced partly by a reduction of the amount of fuel present."

The bolded word read as achieved beforehand.. was that intentional or a minor mistake? Doesn't logically follow that one would want to achieve the risk of a major wildfire, much less so by reducing fuel. 124.178.193.129 16:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Taiga
The info at Taiga is rather redundant, off-topic as stated, and more fitting here. It should be merged to Wildfire. -- P199 18:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Some at least of it refers to the particular fire cycles fround in taiga, and should be retained there, but other parts would be better moved here - MPF 20:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it should be merged. Prospect77 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, should be merged. --Romanski 10:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fire suppression section here is pretty long already. Could it be a separate article, with the appropriate parts from the taiga article, and maybe some more specifics about suppression in other biomes?Lisamh 16:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. It stands to reason that the fire suppression section of the wildfire article is going to be pretty long; that's really the biggest thing worth talking about in terms of wildfires. It definitely strays way off topic in the taiga article. Kafziel Talk 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge. Discussion of fire suppression is almost half of the taiga overview article, which is disproportionate - the content is more specific and specialised, so fits better in Wildfire. Martin 11:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the detailed discussion on Fire Suppression from Taiga overview to "Success of fire suppression in northern forests" cross-referenced here. Content is on a slightly different theme to this article. Should they still be merged? Martin 12:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Total Land Area, Underground Fire, Conversion
Is it possible to put the percentage number of burning forest area compared to total LAND area of the country? In archipelago like Indonesia and Philippines, most of the country are sea/water, not land. There is a continous underground fire / smouldering fire (since 1997) on peat that burn without any oxygen supply deep under Kalimantan and East Sumatra forest. This fire will re-surface every dry season. Is this a new kind of forest fire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.145.9 (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

There is something funny about France data: 300 km², 12,140 acres, I use online calculator: 300 square kilometer = 74131 acres. 12 140 acre = 49 square kilometer Which one is the correct number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.145.7 (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the data should be 52140 acres === 211 square km. 0.04% of France is approx. 219 square km. Is this the correct data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.73.116.208 (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In some countries, Acres is not popular/unrecognized. Is it better to use square mile? (1 square mile=2.59 square km). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.145.9 (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Cant understand sentence
Under "BEHAVIOR", the first sentence as printed makes no sense: When the water reserves in the soil, the soil are between 100 percent and 30percent. (Halesw 02:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Neither can I - if someone knows what is trying to be said (and has a citation for any statistics introduced) feel free to add it back. Richard001 08:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wildfire simulation and modeling
Any interest, would it be better as a section here or in a separate page? A little math and lots of journal references. Jmath666 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Biased POV
This sentence is a personal point of view:
 * "However, this concept has been misapplied in a "one-size-fits-all" application to other ecosystems such as California chaparral."

If there are criticisms of a government policy, we should state factually that "there are criticisms", and cite an external publication where the criticism was made. Mtford 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

what happened to the stuff on fire safety I added? it could save lives! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.210.156 (talk) 05:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Statistics for Australia & New Zealand
I know that in Australia and New Zealand there are massive forest fires every year, however in the statistics section there are no available statistics for those countries. Does anybody have a source from which information could be added to this page?Prince.timotheus 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Australian bureau of statistics (official federal govt. stats): http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/46d1bc47ac9d0c7bca256c470025ff87/ccb3f2e90ba779d3ca256dea00053977!OpenDocument
 * here are a few sources:

state of Victoria "public land in Victoria over the last 70 years": http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenfoe.nsf/childdocs/-D79E4FB0C437E1B6CA256DA60008B9EF?open David Woodward 15:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I calculated the correct values from that source. They are as follows: "Australia (2002-2003): 212,402 km², 52,485,790 acres, i.e. 2.75% of the territory; 7 deaths." If anyone feels they would like to include it into the article feel free. Prince.timotheus 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Origins
It would be nice to have a section on the origins of wildfires. Are they caused by lightening or are the human made fires growing out of control? I don't have any data myself though User:nielsle —Preceding comment was added at 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Climate Change Link
I've added a citation to a newspaper article reporting on a study of the link between climate change and forest fires. The phrase needed to be substantiated; I believe this should suffice, if not, please revert or find a new source. Counters 13:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I the consensus?
I think the list is too long. I think I'll move/update List of wildfires with all the info here and delete the rest, only keeping those with the most deaths, area, etc. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 21:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Optigan13's suggestions regarding this page. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 17:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the links section, and if anyone is interested in some interesting wildfire links, I moved those from Wildfire to User:MrBell/sandbox (per Optigan13's suggestions). I will dig through those and add appropriate content with refs to Wildfire as needed.  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I propose moving most of the Suppression section to wildland fire suppression, aerial firefighting, or other appropriate pages. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 01:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review suggestions
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
 * Per What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.[?]
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 28 km, use 28 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 28&amp;nbsp;km.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .[?]
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), colonize (A) (British: colonise), categorize (A) (British: categorise), ization (A) (British: isation), modeling (A) (British: modelling), cosy (B) (American: cozy), mould (B) (American: mold), program  (A) (British: programme).
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Statistics
This section was moved from article here. I will incorporate the data into the article as prose.

Every year, the burnt surface represents about:
 * France: 52140 acre, 0.04% of the territory
 * Portugal:
 * 1991 : 449732 acre, i.e. 2% of the territory
 * 2003 : 1050000 acre, i.e. 4.6% of the territory; 20 deaths ;
 * 2004 : 297836 acre, i.e. 1.3% of the territory
 * 2005 : 707668 acre, i.e. 3.1% of the territory; 17 deaths;
 * 2006 : 178904 acre, i.e. 0.8% of the territory; 10 deaths;
 * United States: 4300000 acre i.e. 0.18% of the territory
 * Indonesia. Sources: before 1997 from Indonesian Environmental Impact Management Agency (BAPEDAL) and Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) - Collaborative Environmental Project in Indonesia (CEPI). 1997/1998 from Asian Development Bank (ADB). From 1999: Indonesian Ministry of Forestry.
 * 1982 and 1983: 36,000 km² (8.9 million acres)
 * 1987: 492 km² (121,880 acres).
 * 1991: 1,189 km² (293,761 acres).
 * 1994: 1,618 km² (399,812 acres).
 * 1997 and 1998: 97,550 km² (24.1 million acres) - from ADB.
 * 1999: 440.90 km² (108,949 acres).
 * 2000: 82.55 km² ( 20,399 acres).
 * 2001: 143.51 km² ( 35,462 acres).
 * 2002: 366.91 km² ( 90,665 acres).
 * 2003: 37.45 km² ( 9,254 acres).
 * 2004: 139.91 km² ( 34,573 acres).
 * 2005: 133.28 km² ( 32,934 acres).

Mr Bell  ( talk ) 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this pic
Could use it in Wildland fire suppression, but I think it fits better under a prevention section of some kind. However, I think the Smokey Bear pic is a better fit for Wildfire. If that section is expanded, maybe the red flag pic could be added. Mr Bell  ( talk ) 19:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is good info
"During the Vietnam War, approximately 12% of South Vietnam’s forest cover was converted to areas dominated by extremely flammable grasses, e.g. Imperata cylindrica and the exotic species Pennisetum polystachyon, through use of herbicides, explosives, mechanical land clearing and burning operations. Fires occur in these locations almost annually. (Karki, 4) Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 21:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Note on Forest Service pictures
Media copyright questions/Archive/2009/February Mr Bell  ( talk ) 23:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced stmts
Moved from the Detection section. I haven't found anything that discusses the following, but decided to move it here for now (existed before I started editing this article):

"Although a relatively new approach, local sensor networks are able to accurately penetrate thick vegetation and guarantee early detection without false alarms, as well as detecting crawling wildfires. The main limitation of this technology is its high cost which at this time limits its application to small areas.

"...Brightness and color change detection as well as night vision capabilities may be incorporated into sensor arrays. Large towers are an ideal approach to wider areas as they have the advantage of "looking higher", allowing them to locate a wildfire of any size. However, fixed towers are "blind" to obstacles like thick vegetation and can miss crawling wildfires. In addition, high winds, including those during days of high fire danger, can cause frequent false alarms." Mr Bell  ( talk ) 20:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Table in Detection Section
The table once was just some data and a few links (see ). I haven't been able to verify all the data, so I'll move the table here for now.



— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBell (talk • contribs) 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Text not included
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBell (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nine out of ten wildfires are reportedly caused by some human interaction. (9 out of 10 where, in the US, world?)


 * Humans caused 55% of Canada's fires


 * Report of the National Inquiry on Bushfire Mitigation and Management

Wildfires in the United States are responsible for "about 95% of the total acres burned and close to 85% of all suppression costs," as suppression efforts and damage caused can exceed billions of US dollars annually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBell (talk • contribs) 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit
Heya. I'm going to give this article a thorough copy edit to the best of my abilities. I attempted to review it for FAC but a missing verb and a split infinitive stopped me short. If I change the meaning of any sentences or compromise accuracy, feel free to revert an edit or adjust the wording to reflect what it actually means. I'm going to concentrate on grammatical accuracy and brilliance. I'll let you know when I think I'm done. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the help. Feel free to take your time.  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 17:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My comments/questions are in green italics. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 17:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Who is Billing (ref 18)? I don't see his name in any sources.
 * Fixed


 * What is a crown fire? --Moni3 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 *  Is a link down to the fuel type section sufficient? Wording changed; better?


 * There's a groundfire in Centralia, Pennsylvania that has been burning for decades, FYI. Might be interesting to add.
 * Added to ground fire with wikilinks.


 * Ladder fires: you're describing typical fuel for fires in the Fuel type section, yet invasive species is listed. This is an odd thing to include in the list since fire eats anything flammable in the fire's path regardless of native or invasive species.
 * I'm not sure I understand. I mean to include it because invasive species (e.g. Kudzu) can act as ladder fuels.
 * Current text reads: Ladder fires consume material between low-level vegetation and tree canopies, such as small trees, downed logs, vines, and invasive plants but to highlight invasive plants without explaining ones like kudzu or old world climbing fern can act as fire ladders is confusing. I suggest ending the sentence at vines and starting a new one about invasive species. Without the distinction it seems as if ladder fires consume only small trees, downed logs, vines, and invasive plants, which begs the question of why invasive plants? As if the fire can differentiate between exotic species and native ones. I understand your point--I wrote Restoration of the Everglades in which old world climbing fern is specifically mentioned--but I anticipate readers without intimate knowledge of fire ladders won't be able to understand the point. --Moni3 (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed; better?


 * earlier snowmelt and associated warming is this Global warming? If so, it should be stated.
 * Quote from that reference: "Whether the changes observed in western hydroclimate and wildfire are the result of greenhouse gas–induced global warming or only an unusual natural fluctuation is beyond the scope of this work." How should this be stated so global warming, though inferred, isn't assumed?


 * There is a transcluded template in the history section that I've never seen in an FA before. Actually, I don't recall ever seeing a template with prose in it... At any rate, it bolds the word wildfire, which is unnecessary and distracting.
 *  I wasn't the author of the last two. I'll have to investigate the reasons for the adds. The template seems to have been added to maintain consistency between Wildfire, Fire, and Fossil record of fire.  Should this be removed and typed verbatim instead?

Watch for:
 * The intermittent citing in the middle of sentences throughout the article, quite frankly, drives me nuts. It interrupts the flow of sentences, and I suggest adopting a citing method that will help readers through the article with as few interruptions as possible.
 * Done, I think.


 * Also - see WP:Overlinking as a reference about linking words that are common in English and repeated linking of the same words in the article. I think I delinked smoldering three times.
 * I've removed quite a number of wikilinks to concepts that a typical adult should understand, IMO. How does it look now?


 * Pay attention also to the way you're using quotes. Quotes are most appropriate when expressing the opinions of recognized experts in their fields. Instead of quoting from a paper or brochure that does not seem to be authoritative when referring to the topic as a whole--such as the Florida Alliance for Safe Homes--paraphrase. When Professor X, Master of Wildfires states his opinion, that can be quoted with an explanation that Professor X, Master of Wildfires said it.
 * ''I've removed some quotations and summarized their content, but there remain three:


 * 1) "evils were caused by fires"...; in Human Involvement
 * 2) "the most effective treatment for reducing a fire’s rate of spread, fireline intensity, flame length, and heat per unit of area..."; in Prevention
 * 3) "Note the changes in vertical arrangement and horizontal continuity in forest stand structure"; in the three-panel image at the end of Prevention
 * I can't figure out how to reduce these to simpler ideas without diluting their meaning. Any suggestions?

I got through the Human history section, which is where I am going to stop. I would like to assist you in improving the article, but I have many concerns about the material, the least of which are the copy edits I made of multiple style errors. Articles should be ready to go, so to speak, when they are nominated for FA. I would like to know if the History section summarizes human involvement in wildfire; two small paragraphs does not seem to be a thorough representation of people's association to uncontrolled conflagrations. The uncited quote in the Human history section also--we're coming up on compounded problems that are getting more difficult to untangle.

I'm placing the article on watch to participate in the discussion. SandyGeorgia and Karanacs encourage reviewers to support or oppose an FAC instead of simply make comments. Right now, I'm going to oppose the article and link to this section. If you think you can fix my objections within a few days' time, I will reconsider, but I recommend removing the nomination by way of a message on Sandy's talk page, working on the prose and content and re-nominating in a few weeks' time. --Moni3 (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A note was left for SandyGeorgia. Thanks for the input so far, you've been very helpful. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 19:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness: concepts that are introduced in the article need to be explained when they are first mentioned. Links are supposed to be useful (and quite frankly, to promote ADD, stream of consciousness clicking, and degrees of separation games) to readers to go beyond and find out more about a topic, but links should not be used in place of explanations per the link to crown fire. Using a term, linking to a section farther down in the article while not explaining what the concept is when first linked halts comprehension of the point you're trying to make. Thoughts should be fluid and whole. Readers should be able to get through--and want to get through--the entire article and have a thorough understanding of the topic, then start clicking on things they would like to know more about that are more tangentially related. Frequent interruptions and forcing the reader to click on other articles or farther down in this one helps them with that ADD thing until they're 10 articles away and forgot what they were reading when they started. --Moni3 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Text was changed; is it understandable now?

Ok it looks like it's going good so far. What do you think of switching the Ecology and Human history sections? It seems a logical connection from history to Prevention and Suppression because both these issues deal with human interaction with fire, where Ecology does not necessarily connect with people. I will copy edit the Prevention and Suppression sections within the next couple days. My biggest reservations are with the Human history section. Frankly, I have no idea of the history people have with wildfires, but it seems like one paragraph is not enough to discuss it. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Work has been done on the Human history section; how does it look now?

Round 2
Watch for:
 * Consistency of measurements, making sure the metric system is first (which is common in global topics) and it is either abbreviated or spelled out each time. See uncontrolled disasters that burn through 0.4 to 400 square kilometres (100 to 100,000 acres) or more, they can be as small as 0.25 acres (0.0010 km2) or less
 * Done.
 * Make sure you do a thorough check of the entire article for this. I saw another instance of this farther down. --Moni3 (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed two instances. Are there others that I'm just not seeing?


 * A profusion of parenthetical statements that can easily be assimilated into prose. I have fixed many of these. Some of them may be able to be expanded by a couple sentences to give your readers a full understanding of the concepts within. Parenthetical statements in encyclopedia writing should be kept to a bare minimum.
 * There remain these quotations:


 * 1) ..."clear or severely damage 55 per cent of the Amazon rainforest by the year 2030" according to Rebecca Lindsay of NASA's Earth Observatory
 * 2) ...Phillip II on the grounds that "evils were caused by fires"
 * 3) ...controlled burns are reportedly "the most effective treatment for reducing a fire’s rate of spread, fireline intensity, flame length, and heat per unit of area." ''(debatable; others may argue for other techniques)
 * I hesitate diluting the meaning or adding unnecessary words. Any suggestions?


 * If Rebecca Lindsay is an expert in her field, then leave the quotation in. Just make sure it's attributed in the prose to Linsday as an expert at NASA.
 * If Phillip II used language such as "evils" that reflected national policy, then leave it as a quote.
 * The author stated "on the grounds that evils were caused by fires". What is "evils" (a harmful effect)?
 * Similar to Linsday's quote, if you wish to quote an expert, leave it in quotes, but attribute it to the name of the expert and what agency the expert works for: Jan Van Wagtendonk, a biologist at the Yellowstone Field Station writes...
 * Watch also: you have two articles by Van Wagtedonk but the citation does not differentiate which article this quote is attributed to.
 * There are indeed two refs by van Wagtendonk, but they differ greatly in page numbers. Is that sufficient to distinguish them?


 * My initial statement here was about parenthetic statements (see also this link), that appeared throughout the article. This article should explain all issues related to the understanding of wildfires. Links simply assist the reader in finding out more about the tangential issues, so don't depend on links to do the explaining for you. If wildfire modeling is an important concept for readers they should understand it here. Most would require only one or two sentences to explain the relevance of the concept to this one.
 * My mistake. The "(see also...)" have been added in as text or removed.


 * At least one sentence was cited with 5 ref links. Choose the three best and drop the rest to a notes system (seen here) if they absolutely must be referenced. --Moni3 (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that make the notes section look a bit cluttered? These are the refs used (I deleted one of them):
 * Lists that go on and on should be included, but not in the prose. Rarely, in very controversial articles, facts are often so disputed that readers and editors just don't believe in one, two, or even three citations that confirm research. But the multiple cites interrupt reading so they should be dropped to a notes section. If it's not a very controversial idea, then it begs the question of why it's overcited. What's the nature of the cite?
 * The section and the bulleted list are a composite of the information contained in the refs. To be honest, I would have to cite all three references after each bullet point to indicate the source of the information. Should I do this instead?

Check out:
 * Caribbean Pine, a tree especially in the Bahamas that spontaneously combusts when the sun hits the sap that acts as a magnifying glass. I've been to the Bahamas and seen these trees burst into flames and no one seems to care. It was weird. See Fire climax community here and sources at Bahamian pineyards.
 * Added something. Your opinion?


 * Sawgrass in the Everglades burns over the water. Sawgrass prairies and Florida slash pines are two fire-dependent communities that can also be destroyed during droughts because of the peat underlying most of the Everglades. See Geography and ecology of the Everglades. --Moni3 (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What are the rules on adding an exact phrase from another article? For example, add the statement: "Fire in the sawgrass marshes serves to keep out larger bushes and trees, and releases nutrients from decaying plant matter more efficiently than decomposition. " from the above-mentioned Everglades article.

I'm going to ask to copy edit the article as well. Her attention to detail is better than mine, an she will be able to give you excellent suggestions. I've run out of time right now, but I will do what I can to assist you. --Moni3 (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maralia is sometimes gone for days at a time. I hope she will get back soon. I was away myself for the weekend. I'll look over the rest of the article today. --Moni3 (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you think about highlighting the very controversial decision to allow Yellowstone National Park to burn in 1988? The park superintendant got so much negative reaction from that that the president became involved.
 * I'll go look it up.
 * It looks like there are a lot of opinions about what really happened, such as  Yellowstone fires of 1988, "Despite widespread misconceptions that all fires were initially allowed to burn", and "fires they let burn leapt out of control". How could I best word this without passing judgment or misinformation?


 * This is not clear to me: However, prevention policies must consider the role that humans play in wildfires, since, for example, only 5% of forest fires in Europe are not related to human involvement. Sources of human-caused fire may include arson, accidental ignition, or the uncontrolled use of fire in land-clearing and agriculture such as the slash-and-burn farming in Southeast Asia.
 * Natural caused fires are common, but people cause a lot of fires. It's important to understand the causes of fires to prevent fires. Therefore, prevention policies must understand and plan for fires caused by humans. Should this be worded differently?


 * This statement is vague: Additionally, while fuel treatments are typically limited to smaller areas, effective fire management requires the administration of fuels across large landscapes in order to reduce future fire size and severity.
 * People/cities just go clean up their backyard or neighborhood, but managing large plots/forests is necessary to prevent the big fires (e.g. need to look at the big picture). Should this be worded differently?


 * How early is this? Early detection efforts were focused on early response, accurate day and nighttime use, the ability to prioritize fire danger, and fire size and location in relation to topography
 * Not sure. The ref referred to this article but I'd have to buy it (and it wouldn't be verifiable). Your suggestion?


 * Per WP:MOSIMAGES images should not sandwich text in between them such as in the Detection section.
 * Should I delete one of the pics?
 * Removed one:  [[Image:Wildfire-ISS007 Mosaic2.jpg|thumb|right|160px|alt=High-altitude view of a mountain range with white-brown smoke billowing from several sources across the range|The [[Old Fire]] burning in the San Bernardino Mountains (image taken from the International Space Station)]] [[Image:2009 Waldbrandwarnstufe 5-3.jpg|thumb|left|160px|Public sign to the highest level of fire (5) to a campsite in Germany]]


 * Larger, medium-risk areas could be monitored by scanning towers that incorporate fixed cameras and sensors to detect smoke or additional factors such as the infrared signature of carbon dioxide produced by fires. Is this not a reality? Why the could be? If it's already being used, change it to can be. If it's in the future, clarify that it's still being developed or stuck in development hell for whatever reason.
 * Changed to "can be".


 * Spell all this out: Satellite-mounted sensors such as Envisat's AATSR and ERS-2's ATSR can measure infrared radiation emitted by fires, identifying hot spots greater than 39 °C (102 °F). The NOAA's Hazard Mapping System combines remote-sensing data from satellite sources such as GOES, MODIS, and AVHRR for detection of fire and smoke plume locations (see 2006 Southeast Asian haze#Imagery). I don't understand any of the information provided in these sentences. --Moni3 (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Spelled out. Regarding the information: sensors measure temperatures and variations in temps (hot spots) suggest fires. The Hazard Mapping System combines data from multiple sources based on a variety of techniques. Should I explain those techniques in the article?

Animal adaptations
A recent IP edit added a bit about "animal adaptations" - a quick Google search didn't yield much, as it appears that most animals just run away from fires. I'll add any info I come across to the article. Mr Bell  ( talk ) 16:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked but haven't been able to find anything. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

McKenzie, ''et. al.'', 898, talks about beetle attacks on trees, which encourages fire; and invasion by exotic animals over native ones (I'll this this info later). Mr Bell  ( talk ) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quadrennial Fire Review (2009)
The following text was moved from the article to here so a consensus might be taken to its use in the article. Please feel free to comment as to how this information can be incorporated. Mr Bell  ( talk ) 22:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The 2009 Quadrennial Fire Review (QFR) is a publication that examines the future of wildlfire in the United States and provides insight and predictions about potential changes in mission, roles and responsibilities. It was called the fire community's "crystal ball," by Tom Harbour, Director of Fire and Aviation Management for the USDA Forest Service. The QFR is not a policy or decision document, nor does it contain specific recommendations. Its purpose is to stimulate thought and discussion within the wildfire community about how the nation can best prepare for future wildfire seasons. According to the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), the QFR "was designed as a strategic evaluative process that develops an internal assessment of capabilities of current programs and resources in comparison to future needs for fire management."

The QFR is published every four years. The first QFR was completed in 2005 and the second published in January 2009 by the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho; and the National Advanced Fire Research Institute in Tucson, Arizona. It is modeled on the Department of Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review.

The 2009 QFR was developed by fire experts from federal, state local and tribal organizations, plus assistance from non-government organizations and the research and academic communities. The overall effort was coordinated through the Brookings Institution. The QFR is not reviewed or approved by any government entity. It is meant to be an independent and objective document, free from political or agency influence. The QFR's projections of future conditions extend to a 10-to-20 year time frame, while the strategies for how to prepare for those future conditions is defined in a four-to-five year period.

The QFR looks at trends and makes forecasts about what will need to change within the fire community to deal with future challenges. Among the notable forecasts in the 2009 QFR are: informational techniques continue to decline in popularity. The 2009 QFR also outlines an integrated fuels management plan that would help ensure that fuels treatment investments are tied more closely to land stewardship objectives. It also suggests that small-scale fuels treatments (prescribed burning, mechanical removal of brush, thinning, chemical treatments, and so forth) are not as effective as larger, landscape-scale treatments in terms of ecosystem health.
 * Climate change will produce longer fire seasons, with the potential of 10-12 million acres burning in the United States by the year 2014. Also, wildfire will affect more geographic regions than in the past, specifically the Northeast and Great Lakes areas, which generally have been considered at low-risk. Alaska's fire vulnerability will increase, as well, as warmer temperatures dry out vegetation.
 * The current drought cycle might last another 25 years, creating more stress on vegetation and contributing to a higher number of fires and more volatile fire behavior.
 * 1) Growth will slow in populated areas prone to wildfire (often called the "wildland-urban interface" or WUI), but they will still be at high risk from wildfires.
 * Fire agency budgets will be strained by increasing demands, rising costs and falling government revenues.
 * The concept of "protecting all communities at all costs" should transition to "fostering self-reliance and increasing resiliency." The education focus should shift toward more self-reliance and accountability, producing "fire-adapted communities."
 * Social networking will become the most effective means of informing and educating the public about fire, as traditional media and

The 2005 QFR was prescient. For example, it predicted a significant increase in the number and costs of wildfires, dramatic changes in weather, accelerated WUI growth, and continued fuel build-ups. All of these forecasts proved correct. More than 100 people participated in developing the 2009 version of the QFR. The next QFR is scheduled for publication in 2012. Electronic copies of the QFR are availabe at the NIFC website,


 * It appears that this information would be very useful in the wildfire modeling article. I don't think it's appropriate in the wildfire article because it deals with future predictions.  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved from article


The following block of text was partially moved from the article to here, because it seemed a bit off-topic.

"A September, 2003 wildfire in the North Yorkshire Moors destroyed some 2.5 km2 of heather and the underlying peat layers. Afterwards, wind erosion stripped the ash and the exposed soil, revealing archaeological remains dating back to 10,000 BC; however continuing erosion of the burnt moorland threatened these remains. The burnt moorland was stabilized by sowing ryegrass and heather seeds to allow the heather to regenerate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBell (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The image to the right was in the article but space is limited. Feel free to add it back if it's useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBell (talk • contribs) 16:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone good at animations?
Any way to get this animation in a usable format for use in the article? Mr Bell  ( talk ) 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another great flash image for fires in the year 2000.  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 17:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Some papers for review...

 * Remote sensing techniques to assess active fire characteristics and post-fire effects (Fire intensity, severity)


 * Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: a brief review and suggested usage (Fire intensity, severity)


 * Are wildfires a disaster in the Mediterranean basin? –A review


 * Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation


 * A Burning Story: The Role of Fire in the History of Life

Causes of fire

 * Stats of causes of fire in the EU and (mostly) Italy


 * Forest Fire Statistics UNECE Timber Committee and the FAO European Forestry Commission
 * Fores fires in the Mediterranean area


 * The world on Fire by NOVA has the following info:

Text under construction (more to be added later):
 * "The most common cause of wildfires varies throughout the world. In United States, Canada, and Northwest China, for example, lightning is the major source of ignition.  In other parts of the world, human involvement is a major contributor.  In Mexico, Central America, South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, Fiji, and New Zealand, wildfires can be attributed to human activities such as animal husbandry, agriculture, and land-conversion burning.  Human carelessness is a major cause of wildfires in China and in the Mediterranean Basin.  In Australia, the source of wildfires can be traced to both lightning strikes and human activities such as sparks flying off machinery and cast-away cigarette butts."  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 19:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Detection ideas
Need to focus on international detection methods.


 * Human detection - towers, air patrols, water patrols

Automatic detection

 * Satellites such as the Terra and Aqua are in sun-synchronous orbit and can relay information about fires around the globe. Other satellites are in geostationary orbit, such as the Meteosat-8 and -9 satellites which are fixed over the African continent.


 * Tower-mounted video and infrared cameras in Istria region, Croatia.


 * Tower-mounted cameras in Northern Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa.


 * German author:
 * "CCD-cameras find the smoke, infrared (IR) radiometers detect the heat flux from the fire, IR spectrometers identify the spectral characteristics of the smoke gases, and light detection and ranging (LIDAR) systems measure the laser light backscattered by the smoke particles"


 * "In time-critical local fire events in densely populated areas, ground-based fire watching is the first choice. In Germany several hundred observation towers are manned during the main forest-fire season. The fire-watchers observe the forests for up to 12 hours a day in the most difficult circumstances (extreme temperatures, poor hygienic conditions, isolation, only short breaks of concentration) and report on any smoke formation. Additionally, the authorities have to spend large sums on the construction of observation towers, which also need to be maintained and operated in accordance with relevant legislation and regulations."

detection systems exists due to economic and efficient environment protection. Forest-fire automatic detection is a complex problem that involves substantial amount of various sensorial information and data. Furthermore, the reliability of automatic detection systems is still a significant issue in the domain. The most important drawbacks of existing automatic forest-fire detection systems are high false alarm rate, low functional coverage and high cost of infrared cameras and maintenance."
 * Spain (1999) - "DISTRIBUTED INTELLIGENT AUTOMATIC FOREST-FIRE DETECTION SYSTEM"
 * "Human detection is still the most extended method for forest-fire detection. However, the demand of automatic


 * Izmir (Turkey) "Animals as Mobile Biological Sensors for Forest Fire Detection"
 * "The devices used in this system are animals which are native animals living in forests, sensors (thermo and radiation sensors with GPS features) that measure the temperature and transmit the location of the MBS, access points for wireless communication and a central computer system which classifies of animal actions. The system offers two different methods, firstly: access points continuously receive data about animals’ location using GPS at certain time intervals and the gathered data is then classified and checked to see if there is a sudden movement (panic) of the animal groups: this method is called animal behavior classification (ABC). The second method can be defined as thermal detection (TD): the access points get the temperature values from the MBS devices and send the data to a central computer to check for instant changes in the temperatures."
 * "Early detection of forest fires, containment at the beginning of the fire, and extinguishment before spreading have vital importance."


 * Spain - (MSG-SEVIRI) "FOREST FIRE DETECTION AND MONITORING BY MEANS OF AN INTEGRATED MODIS-MSG SYSTEM"
 * Good discussion of satellites in intro; "...fire detection is a necessity which won’t be solved until geostationary satellites prove their capacity to detect small fires and show their usefulness in providing early alert warnings, which will be really difficult considering the difficulty of building high spatial resolution thermal sensors."


 * EU Fire - "Innovative optoelectronic and acoustic sensing technologies for large scale forest fire long term monitoring."


 * India "Efficient Forest Fire Detection System: A Spatial Data Mining and Image Processing Based Approach"
 * Data mining of "huge databases" using fuzzy logic, AI, etc. (not sure if this can be used here)


 * 1971 USFS "Remote Sensing for Forest Fire Control"
 * "The keys to reducing fire suppression and damage costs lie in prevention, early detection, quick initial attack and pre-fire treatment and planning. Recent advances in remote sensing technology offer opportunities for greatly improving our ability to detect fire-causing lighting and fires in their latent stages, to assist initial attack forces in locating fires that are not easily seen visually, and to determine the perimeter, relative intensity, and location of spot fires on large conflagrations when visual methods are ineffective because of smoke or darkness."


 * Portugal "Feasibility of forest-fire smoke detection using lidar"
 * Use of LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging = visible range radar) to more precisely (high sensitivity and spatial resolution) detect smoke plumes


 * Australia "A smart bushfire monitoring and detection system using GSM technology"
 * Transmit temp and humidity using 2G mobile phone networks and GPS to track position

Mr Bell  ( talk ) 22:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Suppression ideas
Need to focus on international suppression methods.

1. Personnel
 * ground crews (on the front line)
 * hotshot crews (hike in)
 * smokejumpers (parachute in)
 * mop-up

2. Tactics
 * direct attack - throwing sand, beating with sticks, hose lines (spray water or foam)
 * indirect - backfiring, firebreaks, handlines w/ pulaski, dozer lines, retardant, gel (structure protection)

3. Vehicles - standard fire trucks (water, retardant, foam), others? 4. Aircraft - helitack (ping pong balls), unmanned planes, tanker planes - direct (water) vs indirect attack (retardant, foam, gel) 5. Chemicals - silver iodide, retardants

Question: Is Wildfire magazine a reputable source? Mr Bell  ( talk ) 22:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Cryptic C62

 * "Reflecting the type of vegetation or fuel, other names such as brush fire, bushfire, forest fire, grass fire, hill fire, peat fire, vegetation fire, and wildland fire may be used to describe the same phenomenon." This is an odd sentence construction. I think it would read more naturally if the first clause came at the end: "Other names such as brush fire, bushfire, forest fire, grass fire, hill fire, peat fire, vegetation fire, and wildland fire may be used to describe the same phenomenon depending on the type of vegetation being burned."
 * Sounds good to me. Changed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wildfires are characterized in terms of the cause of ignition, their physical properties such as speed of propagation; the combustible material present; and the effect of weather on the fire." I don't understand why this list switches from commas to semi-colons. Are the last three characteristics all examples of physical properties?
 * I'm not sure (I didn't add the stmt) - changed to all semicolons. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Current techniques may permit and even encourage smaller fires in some regions to minimize or remove sources of flammable material from any wildfire that might develop" This is a specific example of a current technique, yes? I can think of only two reasons why you would choose this one technique to appear in the lead: the first is that it is the most commonly used. The second is that it is controversial. In either case, the reason should be made clear. Otherwise, I would suggest listing other techniques to give the reader a broader scope. Also, if this is a current technique, why say that it is "permit"ted by current techniques? This is odd phrasing.
 * Hmm, I think it's controversial (I can't find an exact quote of that) because fire agencies sometimes let things burn, and sometimes the fires escape. What would you suggest on wording?  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're certain that this is a controversial topic worth mentioning in the lead, I wouldn't beat around the bush: "One of the more controversial techniques is controlled burning: permitting or even igniting smaller fires to minimize the amount of flammable material available for a potential wildfire".
 * Changed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 16:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The name wildfire was once a synonym for Greek fire but now refers to any furious or destructive conflagration" The use of "furious", though picturesque, is a little too anthropomorphic for an encyclopedia article. How about "large"?
 * Changed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 16:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wildfires differ from other fires in that they take place outdoors in areas of grassland, woodlands, bushland, scrubland, peatland, and other woody materials" This elements of this list are incompatible. The first five entries are areas, the last entry is a group of materials. Suggest either "Wildfires differ from other fires in that they take place outdoors in grasslands, woodlands, bushlands, scrublands, peatlands, and other wooded areas" or "Wildfires differ from other fires in that they take place outdoors in areas with grass, trees, bush, scrub, peat, and other woody materials" or some variation thereof.
 * Changed to "wooded areas" to keep the redirects consistent. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 16:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Fossil records and human history contain accounts of wildfires, which can be cyclical events." What does it mean to be a cyclical event?
 * How about "as wildfires can be cyclical events"? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't help. I still don't know what a cyclical event is. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "can occur in periodic intervals."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 16:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Buildings may become involved if a wildfire spreads to adjacent communities and threatens these structures." Redundant statement. If "threatened" is the same as "involved", than this statement essentially says "Buildings may become involved... if they become involved."
 * How about "Buildings may become involved if a wildfire spreads to adjacent communities."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 16:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wildfire behavior and severity result from the combination of factors such as available fuels, physical setting, and weather. These factors include fuel type, moisture content in the fuel, humidity, wind speed, topography, geographic location, and ambient temperature." Seems a bit odd to have two lists, so perhaps one should be deleted. On the first hand, the first list is already outline by the subsections of this section. On the second hand, it wouldn't hurt to introduce them all here. Still on the second hand, there isn't much need for the superdetailed list since it won't even be made clear until later how each element affects the fire. Back to the first hand, a comprehensive list is good. Which would you rather keep? Or do you think both should stay?
 * I agree that both are a bit excessive. Whichever you choose to delete/modify is fine by me.  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 21:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "This can be problematic because public fire policies are influenced more by the way the media portrays catastrophic wildfires than by small fires" The link here may not be clear to all readers. Suggest adding an appositive: "This can be problematic because public fire policies, which relate to fires of all sizes, are influenced more by the way the media portrays catastrophic wildfires than by small fires"
 * Good idea - changed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 21:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wildfires occur when the necessary elements of a fire triangle intersect:" This is inaccurate for two reasons. First, the fire triangle is a simplified model which applies to all fires, not just to wildfires. This can be made more specific to wildfires by appending the phrase "in a wooded area" or some such. Second, the word "intersect" mixes metaphors. It only really makes sense if the fire triangle is replaced with a fire Venn diagram or a fire system of linear equations. Suggested rewrite: "Wildfires occur when all of the necessary elements of a fire triangle come together in a wooded area:" or some such.
 * Changed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Dense forests usually provide more shade, resulting in lower ambient temperatures and greater humidity" Just to be clear, these factors imply that dense forests are less susceptible to wildfires, right? If so, the sentence should specify that explicitly rather than leaving the reader to figure it out.
 * Changed to "Dense forests usually provide more shade, resulting in lower ambient temperatures and greater humidity, and are therefore less susceptible to wildfires."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "often a consequence of long, hot, dry periods" How about simplifying to "often a consequence of droughts" ?
 * Changed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Even before the flames of a wildfire arrive at a particular location, heat transfer from the wildfire front can precede the flames, warming the air to 800 °C (1,470 °F), which dries and pre-heats flammable materials" What is the significance of this factoid? I assume it implies that heat transfer can cause materials to ignite faster and allow the flames to spread faster. If so, this should be stated explicitly.
 * How about "Even before the flames of a wildfire arrive at a particular location, heat transfer from the wildfire front warms the air to 800 °C (1,470 °F), which pre-heats and dries flammable materials, causing materials to ignite faster and allowing the fire to spread faster."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it! Very clear. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "The thousands of coal seam fires that are burning around the world can also flare up and ignite nearby flammable material such as those in Centralia, Pennsylvania, Burning Mountain, Australia, and several coal-sustained fires in China." It is unclear what these locations are examples of. Are these just examples of coal seam fires? Or are they locations in which such fires are known to have caused wildfires?
 * Yes, they are examples of coal seam fires that can start wildfires (the ref here). Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 17:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, if these are examples of coal seam fires that can start wildfires (but haven't), then I suggest the following rewording: "The thousands of coal seam fires that are burning around the world, such as those in Centralia, Pennsylvania, Burning Mountain, Australia, and several coal-sustained fires in China, can also flare up and ignite nearby flammable material." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Better. Now I think something should be done about the list of coal seam fire locations. The fact that the commas are used both to separate list items and to separate cities from states is confusing. I suggest either employing only the specific locations (Centralia, Burning Mountain, and various in China), as the general locations on their own wouldn't be useful. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So "...such as those in Centralia, Burning Mountain and several coal-sustained fires in China..."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 19:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "In Australian bushfires, spot fires have been documented 10 kilometers (6 mi) from the fire front" First, it has not yet been made clear what a "spot fire" is, though I assume it simply means a fire started by spotting. Second, this sentence is not grammatically correct for the meaning it intends to convey. What it actually implies is that some wildfire research was standing 10 kilometers away from the fire front documenting various spot fires, which is obviously not the intended meaning! Suggest "In Australian bushfires, spot fires are known to occur as far as 10 kilometers (6 mi) from the fire front"
 * How about "Spotting causes spot fires as hot embers and firebrands ignite fuels downwind from the fire. In Australian bushfires, spot fires are known to occur as far as 10 kilometers (6 mi) from the fire front."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wildfires have a rapid forward rate of spread (FROS) when fueled by dense uninterrupted vegetation, particularly in wooded areas with canopies. They can move as fast as 10.8 kilometers per hour (6.7 mph) in forests and 22 kilometers per hour (14 mph) in grasslands" These two sentences seem to contradict each other. If wildfires spread faster in wooded areas with canopies, why is the maximum rate higher in grasslands than in forests?
 * Oops - the ref states "Wildfires typically start in drought conditions and will spread rapidly in areas with continuous fuels, thick vegetation and continuous overhead tree canopies."
 * How about "Wildfires have a rapid forward rate of spread (FROS) when burning through dense, uninterrupted fuels."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Intense heat and smoke can lead to disorientation and loss of appreciation of the direction of the fire. These factors make fires particularly dangerous: in the 1949 Mann Gulch fire in Montana, USA, thirteen smokejumpers died when they lost their communication links and became disorientated; the fire consumed 18 square kilometers (4,400 acres)" I think this information would be more appropriate in the Suppression section. Regardless of where it goes, I don't understand how the last clause is relevant.
 * How about "Intense heat and smoke can lead to disorientation and loss of appreciation of the direction of the fire, which can make fires particularly dangerous. For example, during the 1949 Mann Gulch fire in Montana, USA, thirteen smokejumpers died when they lost their communication links, became disorientated, and were overtaken by the fire."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Better. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "In the Australian February 2009 Victorian bushfires, at least 173 people died and over 2,029 homes and 3,500 structures were lost when they became engulfed by wildfire." This also seems misplaced, though I suppose it could stay in this section if it mentions the forward rate of spread of the fire.
 * I'll move this phrase and the previous one to the Suppression section after you respond. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think both phrases are better suited for the Suppression section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved both to the suppression section and added a generic intro sentence. I also rearranged the paragraphs in the "Physical properties" section to avoid a paragraph with only 2 sentences.  Feel free to reorder them if you see a better fit.  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 23:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Especially large wildfires may affect air currents in their immediate vicinities by acting as natural chimneys. In an occurrence termed stack effect" Are these referring to the same thing? If so, how about: "Especially large wildfires may affect air currents in their immediate vicinities by the stack effect: air rises as it is heated..."
 * Changed to your suggestion. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wide rates of spread, prolific crowning and/or spotting" What is "crowning"? This is the first instance of it in the article. Also, avoid "and/or", as the "and" is redundant. "Or" already implies that both conditions can be true.
 * Removed the "and". I was about to add something about crowning, but then I noticed that the term "surface fires" are mentioned in the last sentence of the second paragraph in the "Physical properties" section ("High-temperature and long-duration surface wildfires...").  Would the term "surface fires" need an explanation too?  If so, would it be possible to move the "Fuel type" section before the "Physical properties section"? That way, both crown fires and surface fires could be explained beforehand.  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 19:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it definitely would make sense to have Fuel type before Physical properties, especially if it allows you to define those relevant terms. "Surface fire" seems like a very intuitive term, unless its meaning is somehow distinct from "wildfire". "Crowning" definitely needs an explanation though. Also, I didn't notice this the first time, but what is a "wide" forward rate of spread? I thought FROS would be described as rapid/slow, not "wide". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Switched the sections and called out the term crowning in the "Fuel type" section. Also, changed "Wide rates of spread..." to "Rapid...".  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "For example, ground-clearing fires lit by humans can spread into the Amazon rain forest, damaging ecosystems not particularly suited for heat or arid conditions" This is an example of both a crawling fire and (presumably) a canopy fire, which may cause confusion for some readers.
 * How about moving it after the "Crown, canopy, or aerial fires..." subsection? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 17:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (backtracking to Fuel type) "Fuel density is governed by topography, as land shape determines factors such as available sunlight and water for plant growth. For example, fuels uphill from a fire are more readily dried and warmed by the fire than those downhill, yet burning logs can roll downhill." Two problems with this: First, I find it hard to believe that topography (as the term is most commonly used) would be the sole factor in determining fuel density, so I suggest adding "in part" after "governed" Second, the examples you've given in the second sentence, although relevant to the subjects of topography and wildfires, are not relevant to the topic of fuel density.
 * How about switching the second and third sentences? "The spread of wildfires varies based on the flammable material present and its vertical arrangement. For example, fuels uphill from a fire are more readily dried and warmed by the fire than those downhill, yet burning logs can ignite fuels downhill from the fire. Fuel arrangement and density is also governed in part by topography, as land shape determines factors such as available sunlight and water for plant growth..."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 17:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good solution, though the burning log part is a bit unclear. Perhaps "yet burning logs can roll downhill from the fire to ignite other fuels" or some such. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to your suggestion. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (skipping ahead to Effect of weather) "Years of precipitation followed by warm periods have encouraged more widespread fires and longer fire seasons" I'm not sure why this is written in the present perfect tense. "Years of precipitation followed by warm periods can encourage more widespread fires and longer fire seasons" seems more logical.
 * Changed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "U.S. wildfire operations revolve around a 24-hour fire day that begins at 1000 hours" Is this military time? This and the previous sentence should use a consistent time formatting. My hunch is that most users would prefer the conventional 10:00 am.
 * Yes, military time, but it makes sense to keep it all the same. Changed.  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "the veld in the interior and the fynbos in the Western Cape of South Africa" The meaning of this is not clear. Is the veld in the interior of South Africa? Or the interior of Africa? For the sake of simplicity, I suggest changing to "the veld and the fynbos of South Africa" or whatever is most appropriate.
 * How about "...open rural areas (the veld) across southern Africa, the fynbos in the Western Cape of South Africa..."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 15:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Many ecosystems suffer from too much fire, such as the chaparral in southern California and lower elevation deserts in the American Southwest. While these areas are considered fire-dependent," I think it would be helpful to explain why some regions are naturally dependent on fire before explaining that some suffer from too much fire.
 * The subsection titled "Plant adaptations" discusses the dependence on fire - could I move those paragraphs before the paragraph the one about negative effects? (I'd have to abandon the subtitle "Plant adaptations") Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 15:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to switch the paragraphs, but the two pics would be bunched together (the large world fire maps and eco succession pics). I could write a little intro paragraph that discusses "why some regions are naturally dependent on fire" before discusses others that suffer from too much fire, but I'm not sure the pics would look right.  Your thoughts?  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 15:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the subtitle "Plant adaptations" and, and then switched the paragraphs around.  However, I'm not sure if it flows well.  Your thoughts?  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 16:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Argh, I'm not really sure, it does seem odd to skip around from topic to topic. On the one hand, it makes sense to have a subsection on plant adaptations, as this may be exactly what readers are looking for. On the other hand, the paragraph I quoted above does rely on the reader already knowing about fire-dependent areas. Perhaps we could keep the Plant adaptations subsection and just rewrite the quoted paragraph as such: "Although some ecosystems rely on naturally-occurring fires to regulate growth, many ecosystems suffer from too much fire, such as the chaparral in southern California and lower elevation deserts in the American Southwest. The increased fire frequency in these ordinarily fire-dependent areas has upset..." It may require a bit of tweaking, but I think it solves both problems. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 15:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Invasive species such as Lygodium microphyllum and Bromus tectorum may create a positive feedback loop, increasing fire frequency even more" I assume that the positive feedback loop comes from the fact that these species invade when others have been cleared out by fire, but these species are highly flammable, so they create even more fire, correct? I think this should be explained in more explicit detail, as some readers (especially those unfamiliar with the concept of feedback loops) may not fully understand it as is.
 * I'm not too sure how to word it - how about something like this: "Invasive species can grow rapidly in areas that were damaged by fires, and because they are more flammable, can increase the future risk of fire. Examples include Lygodium microphyllum and Bromus tectorum, which can create a positive feedback loop that increases fire frequency and further destroys native growth."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 15:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "Invasive species, such as Lygodium microphyllum and Bromus tectorum, can grow rapidly in areas that were damaged by fires. Because they are highly flammable, they can increase the future risk of fire, creating a positive feedback loop that increases fire frequency and further destroys native growth." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 15:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "In the Amazon Rainforest, drought, logging and cattle ranching practices, and slash-and-burn agriculture damage fire-resistant forests and promote the growth of flammable brush, creating a cycle that encourages more burning." The list of causes in this sentence is somewhat awkward because it has 3 "and"s in it. How about just "In the Amazon Rainforest, drought, logging, cattle ranching, and slash-and-burn agriculture damage fire-resistant forests and promote the growth of flammable brush, creating a cycle that encourages more burning."
 * Changed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 23:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "and threaten to "clear or severely damage 55 per cent of the Amazon rainforest by the year 2030" according to Rebecca Lindsay of NASA's Earth Observatory." I don't see any reason to have a direct quotation here, and I think this would actually be better off without one, both because of the awkward "55 per cent" construction and because it eliminates the need to introduce an insignificant researcher. Also, I couldn't find this statement in the Lindsay ref...?
 * Hmm, I think someone else added/modified that statement during one of the FA reviews (if I remember correctly - or it could have been me and I'm losing my mind?). It looks like the second ref (Nepstad, 4) is the source of the "55 per cent..." but the complete sentence in that ref states "Current trends in agriculture and livestock expansion, fire, drought, and logging could clear or severely damage 55 per cent of the Amazon rainforest by the year 2030."  Sounds like fire isn't the sole cause of the 55% by 2030? How about something like "Fire, along with drought and human involvement, could damage or destroy more than half of the Amazon rainforest by the year 2030."?  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 23:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, works for me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 21:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Organisms in wildfire-prone ecosystems often..." The use of "Organisms" without mentioning plants may lead readers to think that this is a section about adaptations of all organisms, not just plants. Why not just replace with "Plants"?
 * Changed to "Plants". Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 21:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Dense bark, shedding lower branches, and high water content in external structures may protect the organisms from rising temperatures" These adaptations seem to be specific to trees. I suggest replacing "the organisms" with "trees".
 * Changed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 21:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Smoke, charred wood, and heat are common fire cues that stimulate the germination of seeds in a process called serotiny." "fire cues" is a weird phrase. I suspect you made it up :). How about "environmental cues" or shortening to "...and heat can stimulate the..."?
 * Changed to "...and heat can stimulate the..." Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 21:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hatnote: "For more details on plant adaptations, see Plant defense against herbivory." Um.... fire monsters eating plants??? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * lol - more like, "if you're interested in how plants cope with others stressors, see Plant defense against herbivory." It doesn't have to be there; I thought it would be an interesting link between the two articles.  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 21:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting? Yes, if you're a plant. Relevant? ...not so much. Removed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Such adaptations include physical protection against heat, increased growth after a fire event, and flammable materials that encourage fire and may eliminate competition." Does "flammable materials" refer to organic matter? If so, it seems odd to refer to it as "material" in the context of organisms. If it does not refer to organic matter, I don't really understand how this is is an "adaptation".
 * Indeed, "material" does refer to organic matter, but more than just branches and leaves. For example, Eucalyptus can violently explode due to vaporized eucalyptus oil (see Eucalyptus). Should that be specifically included?  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 21:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that should be included, yes. I fell in the category of readers who thought "flammable organic materials" referred primarily to "twigs". I see, however, that this is mentioned in the second paragraph. Maybe it should be moved into the first paragraph? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved from the second paragraph and added "For example..."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 15:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "the part of the atmosphere that extends from the surface of the planet to a height of between 8 and 13 kilometers (5 and 8 mi)" Having "of" and "between" right next to each other is confusing. How about just using an estimate instead? "the part of the atmosphere that extends from the surface of the planet to a height of about 10 km"
 * Changed to "...about 10km..." Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 15:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "With an increase in fire byproducts in the stratosphere, ozone concentration was three times more likely to exceed health standards" Why "was"?
 * The citation reads: "The researchers... studied intense California wildfires that broke out in September and October of 2007. They found that ozone was three times more likely to violate safe levels when fire plumes blew into a region than when no plumes were present." How about something like: "Fire plumes can cause an increase in the likelihood that ozone concentration will violate safe levels."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 15:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having a bit of trouble parsing this, but I think it can be simpler by stating "Increased fire byproducts in the stratosphere can increase ozone concentration beyond safe levels" or something like that. Adding in the probabilities and and likelihoods just makes it more confusing than it needs to be. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Increased fire byproducts in the stratosphere can increase ozone concentration beyond safe levels". Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 17:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wildfire emissions contain greenhouse gases and a number of criteria pollutants which can have a substantial impact on human health and welfare." What are "criteria pollutants"? How is "welfare" distinct from "health" in this context? Suggest removing.
 * I agree that it's not very well-written (my fault). However, I think the citation has some good information.  For example,
 * "Fine particles (PM2.5) have been linked to many cardiovascular and respiratory problems such as premature death, heart attacks, asthma exacerbation, and acute bronchitis." and...
 * "This case study of Washington, Oregon and Idaho found substantial human health impacts from PM2.5 wildfire emissions. The particulate emissions were relatively small in terms of their impact on air quality, less than 2 μg/m3 even at the most impacted locations. However, the estimated change in incidence of health outcomes was found to be quite large with up to 4.93 total adult premature deaths attributable to these emissions. Furthermore, the value of human health outcomes was estimated in the millions of dollars."
 * How about something like, "Wildfire emissions contain fine particulate matter which can cause cardiovascular and respiratory problems."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 17:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, that's a lot easier to digest. I'd recommend linking particulate matter as well. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 21:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "A severe thunderstorm or pyrocumulonimbus in the area of a large wildfire can have its vertical lift enhanced to boost smoke, soot and other particulate matter as high as the lower stratosphere." Whose vertical lift is being enhanced, the wildfire or the storm?
 * Oops, almost overlooked this one... Uh, the storm's lift is enhanced. How about this: "The vertical lift of a severe thunderstorm or pyrocumulonimbus can be enhanced in the area of a large wildfire and propel smoke, soot and other particulate matter as high as the lower stratosphere."?  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 20:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit concerned by the use of origin of fire for the history section. First, although it does mention wildfires, it is not specific to this subject and introduces some irrelevant details. Second, it links to toolserver apps, which I would avoid at all costs for the article namespace. Third, it's not particularly well-written. Fourth, it links to wildfire, which produces unnecessary bold text. Fifth, while templates definitely have their uses, the use of templates to transclude blocks of text greatly reduces usability. I suggest picking out the bits that you need and then writing your own history intro.
 * Aye, that's been a subject of concern for quite a few reviews. It was added by another, so I'm hesitant to pick it apart based on the admonition on the template's page. How should I proceed?  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 17:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How should you proceed? Boldly, of course! The template is causing problems in the article. The solution is to stop using it. Nothing else matters. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than paraphrasing the template text, I'll have to start from scratch on any information, as I do not have access to the citations. Therefore, it might take me a while to get enough info to make a substantial intro.  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 21:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, mate. Do you want me to hold off on the review for a bit so you can concentrate on this issue, or do you want to leave this for later and continue with the review? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I should be able to work this week on this paragraph and the other one about the "main causes of wildfires" above. However, feel free to leave this paragraph for now and continue with the review. Thanks -  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 15:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added some info and refs. Your thoughts?  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 20:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the Causes section would be improved by including statistics about the relative frequency of each of the causes. At the very least, the question "Which is the most common?" should be answered.
 * I'll start compiling some stats. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 17:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're having trouble making a definitive statement as to which cause is the most common, consider making a blanket statement about the variability between countries/continents and then getting more specific afterwards: "The most common cause of wildfires varies throughout the world. In North America, for example, blah blah blah, whereas in the grasslands of Africa, blah blah blah." Or something like that. Judging by the table you've compiled above, you've definitely got the sources to support this. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the causes section with my working draft from above. Your thoughts? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 20:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it, nice work! I made a few minor tweaks, but otherwise this is exactly what I was looking for. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Smoldering surface fires had already occurred by the Early Devonian period" Confusing grammar, as this implies that the Early Devonian occurred before the Silurian period. Suggest changing to: "Smoldering surface fires started to occur in the Early Devonian period" or some such. Also, it would be helpful to put a year estimate on this, as most readers won't know how when the Devonian period was in relation to the Silurian period.
 * Year estimate added, but the ref states "A variety of approaches (experimental and natural charring, comparative anatomy of a range of plant tissues following combustion, and preliminary reflectance studies) demonstrates that smoldering surface fires already occurred ~405 million years ago (Early Devonian)...". I hesitate writing that "smoldering fires started to occur in the Early Devonian." Your thoughts?  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "Smoldering surface fires started to occur sometime before the Early Devonian period 405 million years ago." or some such? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it - changed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 22:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "was accompanied by an increase in the distribution of wildfires" From a statistical standpoint, this phrasing is somewhat ambiguous. When you say that there was an "increase in the distribution", do you mean that there was an increase in the area in which wildfires were prevalent? Or that wildfires became more frequent? Or something else entirely?
 * Ugh, I wrote down the wrong cite and got lost for a while there. The real ref states: "...fires progressively occur in an increasing diversity of ecosystems." Thus, my best guess was to simplify this statement as "increase in the distribution", but I agree that it doesn't read correctly.  I think this refers to your "increase in the area in which wildfires were prevalent".  Your thoughts?  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 22:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We could try "...was accompanied by a more widespread distribution of wildfires". It drops the somewhat helpful word "increase", but I think it's probably the simplest wording we're going to find that preserves the meaning. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to your suggestion. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Later, a decrease in charcoal deposits from the late Permian to the Triassic periods is explained by a decrease in oxygen levels." I'm assuming that the implication of this statement is that a decrease in charcoal deposits indicates a decrease in the amount of fire during this time period, but this relation isn't stated explicitly in this paragraph.
 * So something along the lines of "...a decrease in charcoal deposits from decreased wildfire activity"? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 22:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This could be simplified further by just inserting "wildfire-related" or a similar phrase: "Later, a decrease in wildfire-related charcoal deposits from the late Permian to the Triassic periods is explained by a decrease in oxygen levels." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to your suggestion. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Lepidodendron forests dating to the Carboniferous period show evidence of crown fires." Is there a simple way to explain what the evidence is?
 * The ref states, "the wetland lepidodendron forests of the Carboniferous (345 mya) showed evidence of fire intervals of 105 to 1585 years, with charred apices indicating crown fires." How about, "...forests dating to the Carboniferous period have charred peaks, evidence of crown fires."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Woodlands were gradually replaced by smaller vegetation that facilitated seed-gathering and planting, travel, and hunting" It reads a bit awkwardly when "and" appears twice in a list. If you want to keep seed-gathering and planting together, you could just rearrange it to "travel, hunting, seed-gathering and planting."
 * Changed to your suggestion. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 22:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "and to improve foraging for honey and grasshoppers" Wait, were people actually foraging for grasshoppers?"
 * lol, yup - Grasshopper. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 22:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yummy! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What does "occupational burning" mean?
 * It appears to refer to slash and burn agriculture (mostly pastoral burning), but a bit less pejorative of a term. I was about to change it to slash and burn, but a quick google search suggests the term finds some limited use in various publications. Your thoughts? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 22:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I made occupational burning redirect to slash and burn and then linked it in the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "only 5% of forest fires in Europe are not related to human involvement" Somewhat confusing. The most natural phrasing is "95% of forest fires in Europe are related to human involvement". It's easier to figure out what the statistic means this way.
 * Changed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 20:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Landholders with flammable investments such as orchards and tree crops may encourage neighboring landowners to reduce fire risks" Is this sentence really necessary? It seems more like common sense than a verifiable fact.
 * Removed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 20:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wildfires are caused by a combination of factors such as topography, fuels, and weather. Other than reducing human infractions, only fuels may be altered to affect future fire risk and behavior." Considering that the previous paragraphs primarily discussed human factors, I think it would be helpful to emphasize the distinction in the first of these two sentences. How about "Naturally-occurring wildfires are caused..." or "Wildfires can be caused by a combination of natural factors such as..." ?
 * Changed to the latter. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 20:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "typical during the Neolithic period until World War II" This does not make sense. The Neolithic period was ten thousand years ago. Perhaps you meant "typical from the Neolithic period up until World War II". Even if that's the case, this breaks apart the timeline of this paragraph, as the sentences that follow go back to the 1600s.
 * I indeed meant "typical from the Neolithic period up until World War II". How about adding something like "In the countries bordering the Baltic Sea, fire in land use systems was typical during the Neolithic period" near the start of the paragraph.  Near the end we could add something else, drawing on what the ref states: "Basically the development after the Second World War brought the end of slash-and-burn agriculture and the use of open burning. In addition, the exodus of rural population led to increasing use of machinery, pesticides and fertilizers." Your thoughts?  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 22:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the question: Is this author implying that some occurrence during WWII caused an abrupt ending for slashing-and-burning in the Baltic area? It seems very odd to me that there could be something that occurs for ten thousand years which suddenly stops like that, and it is somewhat unnatural to have a timeline with one vaguely defined endpoint and one highly specific endpoint. Perhaps the most natural solution would be to mention the 20th century instead of World War II, though this might be considered WP:Synthesis by some. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well I don't think the author is stating that WWII caused the end; rather, "the development after" caused the transition from frequent burning to "machinery, pesticides, and fertilizers." Regarding nations in "development", the author also mentions "The two tropical countries Indonesia and Brazil, to name the most prominent smoke sources of 1997-98, are nations in transition from forest countries to modern agrarian and industrial societies."  He later mentions that "Already in the 1970s biologists and ecologists began to think about the restoration of traditional land-use methods or "disturbance processes" in order to maintain the old cultural landscapes. [F] ire seemed to be an appropriate solution to keep these systems dynamic and open."  However, he discusses that not until later (e.g. 1996 Germany) was there an active emphasis on previous "disturbance processes" (namely fire).  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think your initial suggestion is probably the best course of action: mention the Neolithic towards the beginning of the paragraph and then the WWII part towards the end. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll start working on something today. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the ref, there is only a passing mention of fire-use in the Neolithic period, and since we already mention the Paleolithic and Mesolithic in the first sentence of this section, how would you feel about omitting the text about the Neolithic? I also added some text about burning in Germany.  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 21:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the WWII text, the ref states: "The rapid socio-economic changes in the post-World War II Baltic Region led also to a change of land-use systems and landscape patterns, resulting in elimination of traditional burning practises. New air quality standards and the generally prevailing opinion by the government administrations that fire would damage ecosystem stability and biodiversity, led to imposing of fire bans in most European countries." How about something like "In the post-WWII Baltic region, socio-economic changes led more stringent air quality standards and bans on fires that eliminated traditional burning practices."? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 21:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me so long as WWII is spelled out. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Added and spelled out. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What does "accurate day and nighttime use" mean?
 * The ref mentions: "the attributes of an ideal fire monitoring remote system: ... (2) effective operation day and night" (page 977) - I assumed this was referring to a system that worked and gave meaningful (accurate) results during both daytime and nighttime use.  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. How about replacing with "accurate results in both daytime and nighttime" ? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to your suggestion. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Early satellite-derived fire analyses were hand-drawn on maps at a remote site and sent via overnight mail to the fire manager." Who is the fire manager? Is there one fire manager for the whole nation or does each area have its own fire manager?
 * It appears that each fire has its own fire manager (called "incident commander" in the US and Canada, I think - see this for an example). Much like a criminal investigation has one individual who is responsible for and oversees a particular case (e.g. a murder investigation), a fire manager is in charge of all of the details of the fire.  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okey doke, I think linking fire manager to incident commander should be sufficient here unless there's a more specific article lurking somewhere. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Added piped link to fire manager. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "and fire size and location in relation to topography" I'm not sure how this relates to the other members of this list. The other members are focused on human actions (response, use, prioritization), but this one is not.
 * The ref mentions "...the ability to detect fire size and location in relation to ground features (topography) and forest resources (vegetation and fuel)." I'm guessing that it's related to fire danger and the tactics used - if the fire fighters know the fire's size and location, then they vary their attack based on the terrain? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merh, I'd prefer to avoid guessing/OR here. I can't think of any way to rewrite this phrase to make it fit logically, and it doesn't seem very critical. Would you object to removing it? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection - removed. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 15:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wildfire suppression may include a variety of tools and technologies, including throwing sand and beating fires with sticks and palm fronds in rural Thailand, using silver iodide to encourage snow fall in China, and full-scale aerial assaults by ALTUS II unmanned aerial vehicles, planes, and helicopters using drops of water and fire retardants." I think this introductory sentence could be improved by making it clearer that there's a spectrum of techniques used based on the technological capacity of the nation in which the fire occurs. Perhaps something like: "Wildfire suppression depends on the technologies available in the area in which the wildfire occurs. In less developed nations such as Thailand, the techniques used can be as simple as throwing sand or beating the fire with sticks or palm fronds. In more advanced nations, ..." This also helps to break up what was an inordinately long sentence.
 * Good point. How about "...In more advanced nations, the attack methods vary due to increased technological capacity. Silver iodide can be used to encourage snow fall, and aerial assaults can be carried out using ALTUS II unmanned aerial vehicles, planes, and helicopters using drops of water and fire retardants."?  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 15:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant to use the phrase "aerial assault" because of its connotation of actual combat. How about rearranging to "while fire retardants and water can be dropped onto fires by planes, helicopters, and ALTUS II unmanned aerial vehicles." ? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to your suggestion, and removed the word "attack" in a previous sentence. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 20:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Wildfire modeling can ultimately aid wildfire suppression, increase the safety of firefighters and the public, reduce risk, and minimize damage." Reducing the risk of what? I assume it's the ignition of the fire.
 * It was reduce the risk of injury, but isn't that already implied in "increase the safety..."? I removed the sentence.  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 23:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahoy! Here are some comments on the article's prose:


 * The Detection section seems to be focused on the use of technology, specifically within the United States, leaving developing nations totally underrepresented here. I think it's important for readers to understand how other cultures deal with fires without the use of our fancy gadgets.
 * I agree that there is a US bias to it. Searches on the internet usually discuss the use of satellite imagery (mostly NASA equipment) to detect fires in rural areas.  Any suggestions on particular phrases that I could search for on the internet?  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we could narrow it down to the areas where wildfires are prevalent and work from there. "fynbos fire detection" looks like it might have some useful results. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My first (and second and third) impression(s) of the Suppression section is that it really doesn't discuss enough of the different technologies and suppression techniques. Much of the information that's currently in there is redundant with the Prevention section. The line seems very clear to me: Prevention deals with actions taken to prevent fires from starting, whereas Suppression deals with actions taken to extinguish a fire after it has started. The second paragraph of Suppression crosses this line.
 * Would you suggest moving the second paragraph to the Prevention section? As for the lack of info regarding "the different technologies and suppression techniques", I'll add that to my list of things to research. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 15:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Perhaps it could be merged into the last paragraph ("Building codes in fire-prone areas...") as both paragraphs are focused on the border between forests and human settlements. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved. Do you think that new paragraph flows well enough the way it is? Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 20:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, works fine for me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's the entire article. I'll keep watching this page and we'll work on the Detection and Suppression sections whenever you're ready. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good - thanks for your help up to this point. Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 23:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)