The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Sawmill Fire of 2017, which burned more than 45,000 acres (18,000 ha), was started at a
gender reveal party?
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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
Sawmill Fire (2017) 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 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
"Footage of the fire's inception was released by the U.S. Forest Service at the request of a local news agency in November 2018, resulting in its causation being mocked online." → "When the U.S. Forest Service released footage of the fire's inception in November 2018 at the request of a local news agency, the cause of the Sawmill Fire was subject to online mockery."
To clarify, is the property owned by the state of Arizona, or by
Arizona State University? If the former, as I suspect, then I would suggest saying "a state-owned property in south-central Arizona"
"though the fire started on property of the State of Arizona, Federal property had been burned." → "although the fire started on property of the State of Arizona, federal property had also been burned."
@
GhostRiver: Addressed the above. I've since writing the article acquired some more materials for #Aftermath about, well, the aftermath of the fire. Should I add them in now or would you like for me to refrain for now, and keep this review short? –
♠Vami_IV†♠04:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Y Neutral enough (although some of the coverage is a bit
spectacular).
Y New enough.
Y No copyvio detected.
Y Pictures are good and clear and illustrative and free-as-in-freedom.
? Some minor copy issues:
I dunno what MOS says about always capitalizing "Federal" (not a big deal to me either way).
"The video brought the fire back into the public conscious, resulting in both Dickey and the concept of gender reveal parties." - weird dangling sentence fragment.
"was the first wildfire known to be ignited by a gender reveal party,[42] but was not the last, as it was succeeded in 2020 by the El Dorado Fire in California, which ignited more public outrage." Either this is accidental, in which case it should be fixed, or deliberate, in which case it's pretty clever, (but still a little potentially confusing).
? I hate to niggle about wording in the hook on an otherwise acceptable nomination, but "started by a gender reveal party" seems somewhat incorrect to me (since this implies that setting vegetation on fire was a part of the schedule for the party, or somehow instrumental to it taking place). It feels like it would be more accurate to say it was "started by an accident at a gender reveal party", or even "started at a gender reveal party".
Good, interesting article; nicely done. Just one thing, and it may be me being obtuse or unobservant, would it be possible to indicate (perhaps on the infobox map) where the fire started and which way it spread. I've looked, tried to work it out, but as far as i have seen there isn't even a wind direction linked with its reported speed, which would at least give an idea of how it spread. I've tried to visualise it from the place names mentioned, but several aren't on the map, and i can't get the spread clear in my mind. It is a small point, but one which would, i think, improve the article. Happy days ~ LindsayHello10:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Agree. As the author of the article, I can tell you that it generally spread (and rather rapidly) from west to east. Were someone to be kind and knowledgeable enough to fashion a map, I'd ask for it to be a .gif and update every eight to twelve hours or so. I was lucky to have the one in-progress map of the fire (pulled it from a government PDF). –
♠Vamí_IV†♠11:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Pretty sure that there's a place to request maps; i'll scout around and see if i can remember where i've seen it in the past. BTW, i love that in a lower section
you don't know why it was given the name; funny witness to our varying depth of knowledge and reliance on sources. Happy days ~ LindsayHello08:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)reply
One can request a map
here, though it looks a bit complicated for a non-tech editor such as myself. Or, it seems, it is possible to use a template ~ {{Reqmap}} ~ on this page to do so. Either way, we'd need to know just where on the present map it started, i think. Happy days ~ LindsayHello10:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Precision
Currently, the first line says "46,991 acres (190 km2)". Infobox even says "46,991
acres (19,017
ha; 73.423
sq mi)". Obviously that exact acre number is from source
28, but still: overly precise. Theis article also has five-digit precision elsewhere.
In general, as the TFA-blurb does, this precision is either not in place, or not even correct (how measured?). I propose to change into |sigfig=3, so 47,000 acres (19,000 ha; 73.4 sq mi). Also, common units like ha and sqmi do not require a link. (|lk=off then)
DePiep (
talk)
13:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Not that it's easily citable, but I was curious about this. Lifting the coordinates (which usually are the same as the initial dispatch location, i.e close to the ignition point) from InciWeb and checking them on Google Maps indicates that the fire started in West Sawmill Canyon.
Penitentes (
talk)
03:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)reply