This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
World Heritage Sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites articles
Rim Fire is part of WikiProject Wildfire, which collaborates on
wildfire-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.WildfireWikipedia:WikiProject WildfireTemplate:WikiProject WildfireWildfire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Good start, but I moved the page to Rim Fire based on the fire's official name and the fact that the fire neither started in Yosemite nor is it primarily burning in Yosemite.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
01:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)reply
There seems to be no issue with disambiguation. Simple have the redirect deleted (as you can move this page until that page is gone) which will need an admin to accomplish and move this into the simple common name title of Rim Fire. Right now the date causes issues for search terms. Per the article
Angora Fire I propose this article follow a similar naming convention without dating.--
Mark Miller (
talk)
22:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)reply
I just asked the editor that created the redirect if he would request deletion as author so the article could be moved. Lets see if that will be enough.--
Mark Miller (
talk)
05:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your comment. I assume you meant Yosemite? The fire is big, and it is burning in remote portions of Yosemite National Park, but it is not any threat to Yosemite Valley, the main tourist area, which remains open. --
MelanieN (
talk)
22:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Tell your mom that Yellowstone is 1,000 miles away. The fire is big, but it's not that big! ;-D Maybe she was talking about three smaller fires that are burning near Yellowstone?
link --
MelanieN (
talk)
00:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Twice now, people have changed "unhealthful" to "unhealthy" in the sentence "Smoke from the fire caused unhealthful air conditions in Reno, Nevada and the Lake Tahoe area". They have tagged "unhealthful" as a "spelling error". Actually the words do have different meanings. "Unhealthful" means "not conducive to good health; unwholesome."
[1] "Unhealthy" mostly means being in poor health, although a secondary meaning is the same as "unhealthful" above.
[2] Although "unhealthy" can be used in this sense of meaning "bad for you", I think we should use the more precise and correct word.
[3] --
MelanieN (
talk)
14:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Rim Fire finally contained; no longer a threat.
I checked the InciWeb update regarding the Rim Fire and found that the fire has reached 100% containment on Thursday, 24 October 2013 at 4 PM PDT.
I had updated the Wikipedia article on the Rim Fire and making a final revision to the article, including how many acres the fire burned and the cost to fight the fire. If anyone has any additional information regarding the Rim Fire containment, you're welcome to revise it more.
184.9.154.19 (
talk)
20:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)reply
It sure was! And now the United States. Forest Service is conducting investigation of whoever started a illegal campfire that sparked the Rim Fire. And whoever did it will find themselves in serious trouble!
Is the date of the fire being fully extinguished (6 September) if the fully contained date is in October? Looking at the Forest service website, the 6 Sept date is simply the last date of entry on their website.
CollinsEddy (
talk)
20:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Added a section on the Rim Fire aftermath, since there are ongoing news and controversies about the burn area and its management. I've added a section on the controversy over the closure of the area, in particular the closure to morel mushroom hunters. I plan on expanding the section on the salvage logging controversy, since the discussion in the article so far represents minimal (and, I'd add, quite unbalanced) coverage of what was in fact, a much larger issue. So far, the article does not even mention Representative Tom McClintock's bill to open up the area to extensive salvage logging. Some sources I plan on using, so I can find them again:
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9].
The CalFire link didn't say a date that the fire was extinguished, and the InciWeb link says it was contained in October. The fire can't be extinguished before it's contained - by definition, you have to contain it (complete a line around the entire fire) before you put it out. So I'm not sure where the dates are coming from, but unless we have some reliable sources that say otherwise, I'm going with the October containment date.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk)
03:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Keith Matthew Emerald of the Sierra foothills town of Columbia, Calif., was charged with two felonies: setting timber afire and lying to a government agency, the U.S. Attorney's Office announced Thursday. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.51.144.118 (
talk)
00:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)reply
A new article has been created called
Rim Fire Recovery Project. I don't believe it is separately notable but should be a part of this article Rim Fire. The significant information and references have already been merged into this article. After any additional merging is done, I propose that the Recovery Project article become a redirect to this article. --
MelanieN (
talk)
22:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Support Merge - The recovery project is not that unique, despite the historic size of this fire. Also, most large fires have their own recovery projects. The information from that article could probably be merged into the Rim Fire article without reducing the coverage on the subject, so there's no real need for a separate "Rim Fire Recovery Project" article.
LightandDark2000 (
talk)
01:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
WP article: The fire started on August 17, 2013 at 3:25pm in the Stanislaus National Forest, east of Groveland, when a hunter lost control of an illegal campfire.
Facebook posts (Official fire department source): The fire started on August 17, 2013 at 3:25 pm in the Stanislaus National Forest, east of Groveland, when a hunter lost control of an illegal campfire.
WP article: The blaze was difficult to fight because of inaccessible terrain and erratic winds, forcing firefighters to be reactive instead of proactive.
Source: The blaze was difficult to fight because of inaccessible terrain and erratic winds, forcing firefighters to be reactive instead of proactive.
@
Shearonink: first, thank you for taking the time to review this! Much appreciated. Second, I'm pretty sure this actually is not plagiarism, at least not by "us". I think that this was copied FROM wikipedia, not the other way around. Here's why... The section that was flagged by
Earwig is heavily sourced by 9 different sources none of which are Facebook (the matching copyvio). But most notably, the copyvio on Facebook was posted on November 22, 2016. This article has only had 2 edits since the end of September and neither of them added this material. Take a look and let me know if you concur. Thanks again! --
Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing)
15:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Note: My mistake about the source being official, it is not. Per its website "Calfireupdates.com is a privately owned website that is not owned or operated by any state government agency." Point taken about who copied what, this FB account is basically a mirror-site. Moving on.
References are problematic. For instance, the following URLs are dead: 22, 60, 34, 9, 44. Please check
http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Rim_Fire for additional issues. For the dead URLs check to see if there is a web-archive/wayback machine URL that can be used. For the cites marked as "300"s, please adjust them (if possible) to the most correct/most recent URL.
On Hold. This review is on hold until the referencing issues (the 5 dead links, etc) are corrected
To any future "reviewers of this review" - please see struck COMMENT copyvio-discussion above - re:Facbook content mirroring WP. The matter is settled to my satisfaction.
This GA Review is on hold pending one last read-through to see if I missed any possible concerns (stylistic or otherwise).
I did find a sentence of concern.
"The fire advanced to within a mile of Hetch Hetchy by Monday, August 26, which was a concern to O'Shaughnessy Dam officials due to ash falling in the water.
So far as I can tell information as cited does not appear within the closest subsequent reference - please find a
reliable source for this statement.
This Review is on hold pending the fixing of this one last concern. Once it is dealt with, I will be able to complete my GA Review.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
General article work
Hello! It's been quite some time since this article's GA review and I think it has aged a bit. I plan to work on it for a while and would welcome any help. Some things I want to do:
Update the article with {{convert}} templates for acreages, distances, and other units
Ensure all references have working URLs, and failing that, solid archives
Add more images
Flesh out the new 'Background' section with information on wildfire history in the area, the drought that was ongoing during the fire, etc.
Better organize the section on 'Effects'
Add a section dedicated to the investigation of the fire's cause and the prosecution/dismissal of charges against the hunter