Talk:2019–20 Australian bushfire season

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Section sizes

Section size for 2019–20 Australian bushfire season (50 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 25,439 25,439 Overview 28,376 28,376 Fire potential 5,326 5,326 Regions affected 613 111,877 New South Wales 3,298 56,945 North Coast 2,225 2,225 Mid North Coast 9,522 9,522 Hunter 1,244 1,244 Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury 2,053 2,619 Escaped Backburns 566 566 Mt Wilson Backburn 5,131 5,131 Sydney 9,937 9,937 Southern Highlands 3,369 3,369 South Coast 9,482 9,482 Riverina 3,649 3,649 Snowy Mountains 6,469 6,469 Victoria 11,286 11,286 Queensland 8,469 8,469 South Australia 11,393 11,393 Western Australia 9,576 9,576 Tasmania 2,610 2,610 Australian Capital Territory 10,185 10,185 Northern Territory 800 800 Precedents 3,474 3,474 Environmental effects 6,482 6,482 Ecological effects 14,292 14,292 Archaeological effects 1,870 1,870 Domestic response 22 15,686 New South Wales 5,340 5,340 Commonwealth 2,470 6,286 Military 3,816 3,816 Community organizations 4,038 4,038 International response 7,309 29,280 International aid 21,971 21,971 Causes 3,188 44,122 Ignition 3,623 3,623 Drought and temperature 5,300 5,300 Climate change 8,796 8,796 Public reaction and speculation over causes 7,520 7,520 Misinformation and contested reporting 15,695 15,695 Political response 3,852 23,948 Criticism and controversy 10,251 10,251 Royal commission and other inquiries 7,735 7,735 Other names 2,110 2,110 Donations 14,159 16,795 Scams and fraud 2,636 2,636 See also 468 468 Notes 24 24 References 28 28 External links 2,117 2,117 Total 329,604 329,604

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Australia: History Mid‑importance

	2019–20 Australian bushfire season is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian history (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Climate change Mid‑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.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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

Disaster management Low‑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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firefighting Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Wildfire High‑importance

	2019–20 Australian bushfire season 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.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

is removing the cost too much to ask for

I think its tarnished the money

It's a perfectly reasonable infobox field. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes but surely deaths should be higher up in the infobox than costs Chidgk1 (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I think having deaths as the last item makes sense. Your eyes will notice the deaths at the end of the box.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Fact check needed

81% of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area burned.

Is this accurate? It seems very high. Jack Upland (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The source following that claim does NOT mention it. Delete? HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd say so. I know the area fairly well and there's no way 81% was burnt.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The claim has been restored. It is actually featured on page 6 of the report that's downloadable from the website listed as a source. But it can't possibly be true.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This says "More than 60 per cent of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area was fire-affected and more than half of this burnt with high or very high severity."--Jack Upland (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2019–20 Australian bushfire season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 16:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

This is going to be a quickfail. The template in the lead section is correct that the lead is too long. The rest of the article is too long as well and could benefit with splitting into smaller articles. The problem is that this is one article trying to summarise numerous fires that don't have articles, and some of the major ones could probably do with on, leaving this to be just an overview. Another possibilty is splitting into state-based subarticles if splitting off the larger fires isn't viable.

Another problem is that here are 11 citation needed tags. I notice that you have not made any edits to this article. It is extremely rare for an article to just be lying around at or near GA level without a concerted effort made by editors to get it to GA level. I recommend not nominating articles you haven't made significant edits to. Steelkamp (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I am extremely new to this but:

1. Consider removing paragraph 2 to "Precedents", it isn't the focus of the article.
2. The political ramifications of the fire season have ... resulted in controversy is better in the Political Response section, it isn't relevant to the overview specifically.
3. Whereas these bushfires ... in damage, this line is irrelevant to the whole article.
4. The Overview section is not chronologically written.
5. The table in the Overview section should be moved to the Regions Affected. It is too extensive to be part of an overview.
6. The See also: under the Precedents section should be moved to the start of the article.
7. The Scams and Frauds section should be moved from the Donation section.

Hephan (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

disparity between sidebar and article claims of area burnt

the sidebar claims that the burnt area was "Approximately 30000 square kilometer", and is entirely unsourced (also doesn't conform to the australian english style), while the body of the article sources the royal commission and claims "24.3 million hectares (60 million acres; 243,000 square kilometres; 94,000 square miles". personally i trust the latter value, given the fact that it has a source, and is much more congruent with of the papers i've read on the topic

the unsourced 30000km2 value is from fluffysandbox's edit on 08:42, 14 January 2023‎. i'm going to update the figure to the 243000km2 value for now, but just pointing this out in the talk

edit after checking: fluffysandbox is also a sockpuppet of a user who's got a history of making a load of erroneous incorrect edits 😔 You know i had to do it to em and i did what had to be done (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)