Wikipedia:Peer review/Blackwater fire of 1937/archive1

Blackwater fire of 1937

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Article is pretty new....started on June 29th and there isn't much more information out there about the event. Looking for a few editors to do a run through and see what this may need to go to FAC.

Thanks, MONGO 18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Ugog Nizdast This is the first time I'm taking part in a peer re→view so please excuse me. These are at first glance and haven't check anything else.

From first para in lead,

• "Fifteen firefighters were killed when a dry weather front shifted the winds 90 degrees causing a sudden increase in wind speed and change of the fire direction, resulting in a firestorm." ...can it be made more clearer? I had to read it 2-3 times before I finally understood it.
• The first thing which came to my mind was what was the reason why so many died, could that be elaborated in a short sentence?
  • From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Opening_paragraph, "should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it", currently the paragraph does not mention the circumstance which caused the tragedy (like the above point)? The rest of the lead does summarise the important points so it's fine..I think.
• Simplify "died during the fire and six more died shortly thereafter of severe burns and respiratory complications"

• Also the lead does not mention HOW to fire was caused? (Here: lightning?)

  Thank you for commenting....I have made some adjustments for word flow and clarity. When you get a chance let me know how it reads for you now. The first sentence indicates that the fire was caused by lightning which I linked for emphasis. I adjusted the next few sentences to better explain how the weather change trapped the firefighters.

About the rest of the article

• Some Section titles could be renamed: Location-> something like Area description, even "Early 20th-century firefighting" and "Dry front causes a blowout" could be made more shorter and simpler. Section titles without repetition of words from the page name sound better, remove the word 'fire' in the other titles.

  Retitled two sections...good suggestions. I will see about a new title for the Early 20th century firefighting section.

Section "Location"

• Could this sentence be compressed and redundant wording removed? I kept reading, "Blackwater creek originate...Blackwater creek flows...Blackwater Canyon consists...Slopes of Blackwater Canyon"

  Eliminated some of the redundant wording...still working on the wording.

• gradient of 20 to 60 percent -> could use a endash.
• "The region has an upper montane mixed-conifer forest dominated by Douglas fir. The forest was dense and mature with heavy fuel loads from dead and downed trees and ladder fuels of dead limbs which extended to the ground." maybe Douglas fir tree and could it be simplified more?

I could continue further, if you have found my suggestions useful. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Working on the issues and appreciate you taking the time to review the article!--MONGO 13:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I'm learning too. Additional small fixes, do you prefer me fixing a few of them myself or posting all of them here?

I got it...I appreciate you pointing them out.

• In the lead, there is a mention of temperature but no units, I think you need to put the F template which converts it to Celsuis here, following this consistency throughout the rest of the article. Make sure you do all changes in terms, units etc throughout the article for consistency.

  Good catch...I completely missed that!

• Remove "the" from the starting, WP:MOS for lead, emphasis the removal of articles like 'the' over there and especially the bolded title at the start.

  Looked over MOS and see what you mean...I have rewritten the lead sentence and adjusted the second. Having Blackwater fire of 1937 bolded in the lead and then having the date, August 1937 seemed redundant anyway. I looked over the specific policy guideline on this matter on formatting first sentence...let me know what you think about this now when you have time.

Done I think it's fine now.

I see where you were trying to go with the opening sentence but I added The as the first word since it had to be there to precede the opening noun. But then I restored my earlier adjustment which clearly indicates when the event happened, how it happened and where.--MONGO 01:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• References - Why not try to find some news agency sources from their archives, all I see are mostly firefighting related ones.

  I'm not a big fan of news sources for things of an older historical perspective. There are a few newer sources and one is used regarding the the 75th anniversary of the fire in 2012.

• See also - Any incidents which are international and of the same scenario or era that can be added here? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

  I found only one article that was of an international appeal from the same era and added that. Sadly, I know there must be numerous others that happened but we lack the articles on those and the information now is hard to locate.--MONGO 14:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I will give a more thorough read and see what comes up, may take a while. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Whatever we can do to give it more of an international perspective is fine but it might be wisest to keep the See also section abbreviated.--MONGO 01:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed minor stuff like "paving the way for" (idiom), "help firefighters understand fire behaviour" seemed excessive, repeated use of some words and split up some long sentences with commas&emdash;see if they are in the right context and improve these if you have a better solution. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That looks fine..thanks.

• In the first section :-"mature with heavy fuel loads" simplify? Shouldn't 10 am rule be in inverted commas? It's a term, confirm this in the MOS.

  I italicized this but not sure if that best.

  • "65 firefighters from the USFS, CCC workers from the National Park Service, Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) and members of the CCC Company 1852 from" not mentioned numbers of the other groups, can it be made to sound better and consistent?

    There are mentions of the numbers of firefighters that were on the fire at various times but the actual numbers deployed in stages isn't available. Having some this line of work I could make viable estimates based on the number of crews but I can't cite myself as an authority.

• Sections "Firefighter deployment" and "Firefighters trapped" can be made to sound better and simpler?

  I'll see what I can do.

• Second section:Explain the term "dry weather front" or use a link? Shouldn't 1pm be 1:00pm? I'm not sure about this...didn't find anything in MOS.

  I think 1pm is the proper format.

• Section "Firefighter trapped" first para, is it possible to simplify since it's quite important. Same section third para - can it be worded more neutrally and clearly? it sounds a little like a story. Ranger Post and all - Why not introduce with full name? since the word 'ranger', 'mop up personnel' may not be familiar to everyone.

  I changed to their first names...good point! I also linked to Dry line.

• Section "Recovery" remove blank space and reduce the size of the image?
  • "These were of Clayton and his crew, reported by the lone survivor, of Clayton's crew who was wearing only his shoes, was badly burned and later died" Improve? and the Relevance of "ultimately they had to pass straight through the fire camps where other CCC firefighters were stationed."? seems not needed here.

    I completely reworded this and its much better now.

• Aftermath section -> "Additionally, the management at the fire were all very experienced with forest fires" sounds odd.
  • "He indicated that due to the distances involved in getting enough manpower to combat the fire while it was still relatively small, the fire wasn't contained enough to prevent the rapid spread that occurred when the weather front approached." something is wrong with the flow and indication of cause-effect in this sentence, which confused me at first glance and "A later review of 16 fatal fires, from the Blackwater fire in 1937 through 1956," simpler wording?

Looked at the page view statistics, other than a spike in viewings on the 4th July (I-day?) after you made it, the average daily viewings per day seem to be less than even 100; the projects say it's mid importance though. Better try to link it more with the rest of the related articles that you find and check the "what links here" option too. Being unfamiliar with this topic, I'm not sure if these low viewing numbers are normal. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The spike in page view stats was due to the article having a DYK blurb. I do not think the page view stats matter. Since this was one of the greatest loss of wildland firefighters in U.S. history and the worst in Wyoming history it probably is mid or even high level importance to the two WikiProjects associated with the article.--MONGO 11:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Will have more time in next few days to work in some more wording issues.--MONGO 15:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ugog....still slowly working on things here...been sidetracked a little but will have more time to refocus by Saturday. I appreciate your thoughtful comments here.--MONGO 15:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Most welcome, I'm glad to be of some help. Take your time, when it's done, I'll take a look at it one more time. Another reviewer would be helpful though. Great work in raising this article from almost nothing! Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Last comment: I've quickly skimmed through the main references it heavily relies on, although didn't do much fact-checking or verifying, I came across something which could be added. Those four sources, explained what made it such a great tragedy, for example: "Not since 1910 have so many lives been lost on a single national forest fire event" and many other such statements. Being unfamiliar with the topic, the main thing which I kept searching for while reading was, what sets this tragedy apart from the others? though I did get an idea why after finishing it, but maybe something can still be done. Perhaps you could add emphasis or expand it even more in the final sections (also lead), to catch the reader's attention? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Excellent review. I may not have adopted all the points you made but the vast majority of suggestions you presented were very helpful. Thank you!--MONGO 19:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)