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.
The result was: promoted by Rjjiiitalk 01:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Penitentes has >10% authorship, so I'm listing him as an additional author. All page numbers are based on the book page numbers, not the page numbers of the PDF itself.
Moved to mainspace by Wildfireupdateman (talk) and Penitentes (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.
Overall: New and long enough (moved to mainspace at time of nomination). The new content by itself is 3759 characters (606 words) without the addition of the older material from 2008 Carson Helicopters Iron 44 crash, which in total brings it to 5457 characters (865 words). Earwig shows no issues. I was recently reminded about WP:DYKIMG: "Try to avoid images that divert readers from the bolded article into a side article." The proposed image for ALT0 refers to (and links to) an entirely different article, 2008 Carson Helicopters Iron 44 crash. Obviously, the two articles are direclty connected, so I think the image might be still okay to use. Just noting the concern in the review. In any case, I confirmed that ALT0 is sourced and appears in the article. I also confirmed that ALT1 is sourced (it is rounded; the actual figure is $73,974,917) and appears in the article. On the other hand, while ALT2 is partially sourced, and partially appears in the article, the term "fire siege" only appears in the source and not in the article. It would be helpful to explain what this term means or how it is used or to remove it from the hook as it doesn't appear in the article body. I have no real preference for any of the hooks. As for the sources, I also want to note for transparency that the majority of the sources are primary. Of the 20 unique sources in use, I see one news source owned by Gannett, and four by an authoritative blog source owned by Bill Gabbert (now deceased), which is now run by the International Association of Wildland Fire (which makes it reliable to me). So that's approximately two non-primary and 18 primary, which may be normal for fire-related articles, but which should probably use more secondary source coverage in the future. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I've tweaked the article a bit to include the wording "fire siege". With the somewhat less impactful fires, most of the sourcing about the fire itself would be progress updates from CAL FIRE. Another factor for the amount of primary sources is that dozens, if not hundreds, of fires were concurrently ongoing in June-August, so coverage about any one of the fires will be diminished. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
One of my pet peeves is seeing words and phrases used that have no common definition simply arise out of nowhere. "Fire siege" is a an older term that comes from warfare that was suddenly used in firefighting parlance in the 2000s and then apparently retconned to refer to older fires in history. Without knowing exactly what this term means (for example, when is a fire siege not a fire siege?) I am hesitant to approve that specific hook. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Also I'm deleting the "dollars" in alt1 because I believe it's redundant. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Approve ALT0 and ALT1. I am happy to approve ALT2 if a brief sourced statement or footnote can be added explaining what a "fire siege" is, but I looked in the literature and found nothing. My reading of it is that it is just another synonym used for a megafire, complex fire, uncontained fire, or out-of-control fire. It is not at all clear to me why the term is used or how it started being used in place of other terms. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your review! I'm alright with letting go of ALT2. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
You are very welcome, Wildfireupdateman. I am fine with ALT2 if you can add some kind of explanatory note indicating where the term comes from and what it means. I looked for 20 minutes and could find nothing. As I said, this is one of my pet peeves. I need to be able to understand a word or concept to use it or to at least pass a hook with it. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
New and long enough (moved to mainspace at time of nomination). The new content by itself is 3759 characters (606 words) without the addition of the older material from 2008 Carson Helicopters Iron 44 crash, which in total brings it to 5457 characters (865 words). Earwig shows no issues. I was recently reminded about WP:DYKIMG: "Try to avoid images that divert readers from the bolded article into a side article." The proposed image for ALT0 refers to (and links to) an entirely different article, 2008 Carson Helicopters Iron 44 crash. Obviously, the two articles are direclty connected, so I think the image might be still okay to use. Just noting the concern in the review. In any case, I confirmed that ALT0 is sourced and appears in the article. I also confirmed that ALT1 is sourced (it is rounded; the actual figure is $73,974,917) and appears in the article. On the other hand, while ALT2 is partially sourced, and partially appears in the article, the term "fire siege" only appears in the source and not in the article. It would be helpful to explain what this term means or how it is used or to remove it from the hook as it doesn't appear in the article body. I have no real preference for any of the hooks. As for the sources, I also want to note for transparency that the majority of the sources are primary. Of the 20 unique sources in use, I see one news source owned by Gannett, and four by an authoritative blog source owned by Bill Gabbert (now deceased), which is now run by the International Association of Wildland Fire (which makes it reliable to me). So that's approximately two non-primary and 18 primary, which may be normal for fire-related articles, but which should probably use more secondary source coverage in the future. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Approve ALT0 and ALT1. I am happy to approve ALT2 if a brief sourced statement or footnote can be added explaining what a "fire siege" is, but I looked in the literature and found nothing. My reading of it is that it is just another synonym used for a megafire, complex fire, uncontained fire, or out-of-control fire. It is not at all clear to me why the term is used or how it started being used in place of other terms. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
