Talk:Wildfire

Wildfire was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 24, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
March 27, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
July 1, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
July 28, 2009	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
February 9, 2010	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 6, 2011	Good article reassessment	Kept
October 3, 2020	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Wildfire Top‑importance

	Wildfire 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Droughts / Wildfires High‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Droughts and wildfires task force (assessed as High-importance).

Disaster management High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occupational Safety and Health Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health 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.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Section sizes

Section size for Wildfire (43 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	10,663	10,663
Ignition	844	7,939
Natural	930	930
Human activity	6,165	6,165
Spread	4,657	4,657
Physical properties	9,643	10,784
Intensity variations during day and night	1,141	1,141
Climate change effects	2,081	23,994
Increasing risks due to heat waves and droughts	11,078	11,078
Carbon dioxide and other emissions from fires	10,835	10,835
Prevention	8,312	8,312
Detection	3,914	32,812
Local sensor networks	5,076	5,076
Satellite and aerial monitoring	8,700	8,700
Artificial intelligence	1,054	1,054
Suppression	4,452	4,452
Costs of wildfire suppression	1,620	1,620
Wildland firefighting safety	4,181	4,181
Fire retardants	3,117	3,117
Modeling	698	698
Impacts on the natural environment	42	19,472
On the atmosphere	5,316	5,316
On ecosystems	8,974	8,974
On waterways	4,022	4,022
On plant and animals	1,118	1,118
Impacts on humans	3,259	40,837
Airborne hazards	4,531	4,531
Health effects	5,530	21,058
Asthma exacerbation	6,402	6,402
Carbon monoxide danger	3,879	3,879
Epidemiology	5,247	5,247
Post-fire risks	7,343	7,343
At-risk groups	24	4,646
Firefighters	2,198	2,198
Residents	2,424	2,424
History	4,206	13,886
Human involvement	9,680	9,680
Society and culture	2,880	2,880
See also	513	513
References	30	13,895
Sources	13,865	13,865
Further reading	273	273
External links	992	992
Total	191,909	191,909

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 136 days may be automatically archived by when more than 9 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Coal power in China#Coal mine fires|coal-sustained fires in China]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Class assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Nherbison.

Please update with: "Spreading like Wildfire: The Rising Threat of Extraordinary Landscape Fires"[edit]

Please add some info about and from this report to the article. It's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:

UN researchers publish a comprehensive study about climate change impacted wildfires with projections (e.g. a 31–57% increase of extreme wildfires by 2100) and information about impacts and countermeasures.^[1]^[2]

I think that only including the above info in section #"Climate change effects" may be insufficient and that it would be good to add information about e.g./especially countermeasures, including (but not only) from this report.

Moreover, I think Effects of climate change#Wildfires (discuss) should also be expanded with brief info from this report.

References

^ Zhong, Raymond (23 February 2022). "Climate Scientists Warn of a 'Global Wildfire Crisis'". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 March 2022.
^ "Number of wildfires to rise by 50% by 2100 and governments are not prepared, experts warn". UN Environment. 23 February 2022. Retrieved 16 March 2022.

Prototyperspective (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this article no mention was made about the damage to oxygen production by wildfires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.38.69 (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead length[edit]

I've shortened the lead a little bit. I think it's now fine. Hi User:Thenightaway, I think it was you who had added the "lead too long" tag? Do you agree that it's now OK? 387 words is a normal lead length. I'd say it could even be expanded to 500 words. Hi User:Rjensen I don't agree with the edit you made on 9 June: You seem to have made the lead very short and copied the old lead text to a section that you called "history". It wasn't actually content for a history section, also there is already a history section towards the lower part of the article. So I have re-instated the old lead but shortened it a bit. EMsmile (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article too long?[edit]

I think the article is currently too long. It has 69 kB (10687 words) "readable prose size". I think it would be good to bring it down to around 50 kB. Looking at the section sizes (see at the top of the talk page), my initial feeling would be that the sections on "ecology" and on "human risk and exposure" should probably be condensed a bit. EMsmile (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some culling and condensing today. I got as far as the section "impacts on humans". Current length is now 55 kB. I found there was a lot of content that was overly detailed, too specific for the U.S., deviating from the main topic into the content area of sub-articles (I have moved some of that and brought it back through the use of the excerpt tool), student-added content which was sometimes difficult to understand, relying too much on a primary source, too detailed or not encyclopedic. (it seems like a lot of students have worked on this article). I will stop for now, to let those who are watching this page catch up, but the bottom part still needs to be scrutinised. I find the tool "who wrote that?" very useful for this exercise. EMsmile (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References need to be formatted better[edit]

This article uses the short ref style but without hyperlinks from the reference list to the sources list. This needs to be improved to make it more user friendly. I would opt to convert the article over to long ref style. I won't have time to tackle this straight away but eventually it needs doing, I think. EMsmile (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

évidences[edit]

There are no figures at all about the different raisons of wildfires. It seems to me that the more frequent are human ones. 37.174.41.65 (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems intuitive, but it has almost zero explanatory utility.

Australians are not uniquely prone to arson — Australia is uniquely prone to the spread of bushfires, regardless of their immediate cause. Foxmilder (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic distribution of article[edit]

the topics of the article aren't too much, but I would still suggest to combine the topics: "Impacts on ecosystems", "impacts on humans", and "health effects" into a single topic named "Impacts" and the the three current topics could be it's sub-topics... Suryanshu Gupta (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale makes sense. Feel free to do this yourself! Wracking ^talk! 17:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved "health effects" into "impacts on humans" so that we have now two sections about impacts. I wouldn't merge them into one single section on impacts as it would get massive and the sub-structure would get too deep. Having two sections on impacts is already, I would say: one for the natural environment and one for humans. By the way the section on health impacts is rather large and might warrant splitting off into a sub-article or moving some of it to Smoke#Health effects of wood smoke. EMsmile (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text block about surface air quality[edit]

I've removed this text block about surface air quality because it was rather wordy and didn't really fit in my opinion. Perhaps it fits better in a sub-article?

Surface air quality:

Whether transported smoke plumes are relevant for surface air quality depends on where they exist in the atmosphere, which in turn depends on the initial injection height of the convective smoke plume into the atmosphere. Smoke that is injected above the planetary boundary layer (PBL) may be detectable from spaceborne satellites and play a role in altering the Earth's energy budget, but would not mix down to the surface where it would impact air quality and human health. Alternatively, smoke confined to a shallow PBL (through nighttime stable stratification of the atmosphere or terrain trapping) may become particularly concentrated and problematic for surface air quality. Wildfire intensity and smoke emissions are not constant throughout the fire lifetime and tend to follow a diurnal cycle that peaks in late afternoon and early evening, and which may be reasonably approximated using a monomodal or bimodal normal distribution.^[1] EMsmile (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree — that’s a long way removed from the basic concept of the wildfire; it belongs in an article about atmospheric phenomena. Foxmilder (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]