You have some good basics here. You're looking for good camera angles, and your video is mostly steady. Good!
I think the main weakness was in the storytelling, which is not your fault. Your reporter kinda slowly works her way up to talking about this fire, and then by the way does a standup nowhere near the fire, and really if it's the biggest freakin' fire ever seen around here then the story ought to be approached that way. Show us the freaking fire. Off the top of the pak. THEN go get reactions from people.
The video quality makes it hard to tell if you're having focus issues, or doing some sort of blur-transition, or what between the standup and the following shot. Take a look at it - either it defocuses or the video quality just got extra sucky there.
With that first bite from the woman pointing toward the fire. I see her hand on screen left, and then I see, after she's done talking, a woman on screen right. Show me the woman when she's talking. I know you're trying to get the fire, but the fire's going to be there for a long time. Sacrifice the shot of her with the fire if it means all I'll see is the back of her hand. And then when you get a wider shot of her, keep her on the same side of the screen so that I know right away that you're showing the woman who was talking in the last shot.
When the reporter is talking about conditions being good for a bad fire, you're showing me green leafy trees and the sun. I know what you're aiming at here - showing them blowing around in the wind, but what came out looked like a nice spring day in the city park. Show me dry grasses being whipped by the wind, and dust clouds racing across a road while heat waves shimmer off of the pavement, and flames at at 45 degree angle to the ground. Show me that it's hot and dry and burning, not leafy green.
Tighten up your edits. Example: "Truckers have to go hours out of their way but told us in this area, it's no surprise." . . . . . . . . . "It's a big tinder box." Why the long pause?
This is a big situation with lots of crews running around, and heat, and flame, and sirens, and noise, and smoke, and sweating firefighters, and equipment being banged around, and firebreaks being dug, and water being sprayed, and you didn't convey any of that. Instead we got a slow-paced package that was delivered in the same tone you might expect from a report on a school board. Again, part of that isn't your fault - the reporter's writing needs improvement, as does her voice work, but you could have paced the edits quicker to give a better sense of the lack of control the crews have in fighting the fire. And there were too many wallpaper shots - Example: She talks about firefighters suffering dehydration. Someone out there has to be sweating. Get a shot of it, and use it there instead of a random cloud of smoke.
As for your question about micing someone up, there isn't a really good way to get shy people to agree to be interviewed, much less put on a lav. Sometimes you gotta get the sound off of your shotgun. But one way to tilt the odds a little in your favor is to be genuinely interested in what's happening to them. If you're covering someone who's relative's house is about to burn down, don't just run up to them and say "hey, I'm from TV, can I interview you?" Talk to 'em first. "Is that your house? Oh, your son's? Is he ok?" Show them that you care - and don't fake it. Actually care. Don't think about the viewfinder, but think about the humanity of the situation. If you care, they're more likely to talk to you.
