Wikipedia:Peer review/Wildfire/archive2

Wildfire

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I've come to a block on what to add further to the article. Thanks to all involved, the article was recently promoted to GA, but I think it may have what it takes to go further. Plus, it's such an important topic that I think it merits the work. I'd welcome any and all suggestions on rearranging, adding info/pics, removing info/pics, the references used and their quality, and anything else. Be my guest, tear it apart.

Thanks, Mr Bell  ( talk ) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference quality looks good and without knowing the subject well I couldn't say if there is anything you should add. The best thing to do would be to survey your sources and try to see what they prioritize. A perfect article would give the most space to the most important aspects of the topic with less for less important aspects and so on. That would help you find the ideal structure for your article.
 * On that note the modeling section for example appears out of place. It's not really large enough for it's own section, but probably not central enough to the topic to be expanded (though I could be wrong, your sources would be the best judge of that). Perhaps it would be better placed in the fire suppression section, since that's where/why wildfire modeling is carried out.
 * Better, but it still sticks out a lot though in that it doesn't seem smoothly related to the topics around it in a well thought out topic structure from most important/general on down to the details. I don't have a better suggestion at the moment though. - Taxman Talk 19:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Similar for the fossil record section. It seems really important, but somehow out of place. Perhaps there is a better way or place to present that material. -- Better in ecology section?
 * Yes, I think that's the best place for it, unless you can think of a better way to integrate it. It does fit there better. - Taxman Talk 19:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Extremes sub-section of the Characteristics section doesn't really cover the topic of extremes much. Either it should be renamed, or refocused on extremes if that is important. -- Better as part of physical characteristics?
 * Probably, if that was what you were going for as the topic. - Taxman Talk 19:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also the ecology section mentions plants have adapted to fire and in a round about way describes some plants as benefiting from them, but could probably use a bit more of a clear summary statement that some species/habitats or whatever actually benefit from wildfires and some are harmed. Also it could use a note that the idea that wildfires could offer any benefit at all is fairly recent in Western science and was actually a surprising conclusion. I can't recall where I read that, perhaps National Geographic.
 * You are correct; it was a recent idea. I wasn't sure to include that in the ecology section or the prevention and suppression sections, but the majority of that story is in the prevention section and Wildfire suppression. Should I link there from the ecology section?
 * Good point, it's probably best covered primarily in the suppression history article, though just the part that gives a better understanding of the ecological aspects should still be mentioned a bit in the ecology section of the main article I'd think. Noting how/why the ecological aspects changed firefighting perhaps. - Taxman Talk 19:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally the lead does not do a good job of properly summarizing the article. It should also cover the most important material in the article, easing the reader into the topic, by clearly defining it and the most important information upfront, then proceeding into somewhat more information that summarizes each of the following most important topics covered in the rest of the article. As it stands the second lead section paragraph doesn't match with the material in the ecology section for example. See WP:LEAD for more on lead sections. - Taxman Talk 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(My questions/comments are in italics, and the "done-t" and "not-done-t" tags are for organizing my thoughts. Mr Bell  ( talk ) 18:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Yeah I think you've done a good job. I adjusted the lead and tweeked the modeling section. I think just the visual difference in that section helps keep it from seeming so separate from the rest of the article. Sorry if the weather link was needed, but it helped to not have it be a top see also. It can of course go in the text though. For the lead I adjusted a bit to try to match up what the lead said about the ecology with what the rest of the article said. Please fix it if I have gone off the mark at all. I also merged the paragraphs to help make sure each was a more complete idea. It would be fine to go back out to 4 paragraphs if you thought it still needed significant expansion as long as each paragraph is fully developed. But I think it's ok now. - Taxman Talk 17:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks good. So what's next, FA review? I added most of the refs myself and made sure to get page numbers, but I'd like to know if there are some that aren't up to par with regard to verifiability. Mr Bell  ( talk ) 18:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty good on that front, but I'm not really up on the reference formatting fashions. Yeah WP:FAC is the place to send it to have it considered for a FA. List it there whenever you feel you have the time to deal with the suggestions you'll get there. It sometimes helps a bit to list it with a bit about the importance of the topic to draw in reviewers. - Taxman Talk 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)