Talk:Wildfire

message: 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.
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.
 Prototyperspective (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please update with: "Spreading like Wildfire: The Rising Threat of Extraordinary Landscape Fires" 

message: I've just removed the further reading list. I don't see how this list is all that beneficial, given that the article already has plenty of in-line citations. Any of the important publications are likely those that have been cited multiple times in the in-line citations. Apart from that, the list of publication is rather Global North centric. EMsmile (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading list removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead length 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article too long? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References need to be formatted better 

message: 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)
replies: text: Your rationale makes sense. Feel free to do this yourself! Wracking talk! 17:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The topic distribution of article 

message: 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. EMsmile (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed text block about surface air quality