Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.
Back when I nominated this for GA status, I was reccomended to send the article to Peer Review and, all going well, then nominate the article here. The only comment at the Peer Review (here) covered only minor problems, all of which were addressed. That comment was seven days ago; nothing since. Consequently, I am pressing on and nominating here. What do you make of it? Is it good enough??? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Some stuff that might help along: The pics could use some enlarging of some sort. Right now, some of the pics are overpowered by the length of their captions. The lead could use some sprucing-up/prosing-up. Right now, imho it kinda reads like a sequential facts, not necessarily connected to each other. Also, while I can't pinpoint any particular thing that bugs me about the section titles ("fire"?), I'm thinking some of them should be sub-sectioned under parent sections. In addition, I'm not sure what WP protocol is regarding disaster articles but would a list of those who perished be inappropriate? Hope these help. Shrumster 06:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly useful comments. I shall rewrite the lead per your comments, and I have made "Emergency response" a subsection of "Fire" and "Recommendations" a subsection of "Investigation". I'm not at all sure how to resize the pics, but I shall draft in someone who does to see to that. As far as a list of the deceased goes, I know in the previous case of Comair Flight 5191, it was decided in a combination of here, here and here (the latter one of which I actually weighed into to have removed! Small world, huh? ;-) that we shouldn't list them. While discusion seemed to be less generalised than simply "disasters" (more like "airliner accidents"), it is still relevant and I think shows why such a list would likely be quickly removed. And now, I've waffled on long enough - let's see who I can track down for those images! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've attempted to rework the lead a bit. How's it now? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unless there's been a long string of equally notable chicken processing plant fires in Hamlet, NC, I'm assuming the article could be moved to Hamlet chicken processing plant fire. Peter Isotalo 16:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst that is a common assumption in relation to disaster articles, over at WP:DM have decided on a naming convention which contradicts that. It was halfway to being officially adopted as a guidline, but talks here, here and here stalled for some reason and nothing ever came of it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest this as the applicable guideline in this case. If there is no other "Hamlet chicken processing plant fire" to disambiguate it from (heh) then clearly, the "1991" is just padding. The title strikes me as being the result of an overindulgence in guidelines rather than intuitive naming.
- Peter Isotalo 18:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gotta admit, WP:IAR is my favourite policy. I'm now neutral on this; I shall put it up for discusion on the talk page and, if no-one objects, perform the move. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'm impressed with the detail (all well sourced) and the neutrality of this article. Lucidly written as well. Hydriotaphia 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. —Scott5114↗ 17:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, you got most. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose until the below are fixed - mostly trivial issues, but a lot of them, and References need noticeable work.[reply]resuplying?- Can you clarify what is wrong here? Maybe I'm just being blind, but I can't get what the problem is. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [1] Needs a p or something. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorted Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The department was comprised of - which dept, the local, or the nearby?of an ethnic minority. - specify minorityminus 28 degrees - specify units (C or F) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement- minus 28 degrees Celsius is not 82.5 °F! Check your calculator again. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I had not hit the 'minus' properly, and calculated for a positive value! Sorted now, and got one we both missed earlier (the cooker temp.) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- minus 28 degrees Celsius is not 82.5 °F! Check your calculator again. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
psi, gallons, yards - similarlyJohn Brooks was not the state Labor Secretary!!!Recommendations - cite the report here.- Rather than use a ref tag after *every* one, I added an external link to the report at the start of the section. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Negative air flow - link or explain uncommon termwhilst? A quote from John Brooks, no doubt... :-)- Actually, whilst is a perfectly valid word. However, as it is aparantly mainly Brittish English, I changed it anyway as the article is on an event in the US, and is chiefly of US interest and signifigance. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's poetic or old fashioned in US usage. On those lines: "vaporised. This vapour" ... Search for "ised" and convert to "ized", and "our"->"or". --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed them, too. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
$808,150 - see WP:$, you're close...- Sorted (if I'm reading the MOS right here) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, I was actually thinking of using US$ - but your solution is a creative interpretation, I guess will pass. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quote from Essential Criminology doesn't say anything the main article doesn't say already. I'd just list the names of the testbooks, "as cases in text books such as..."On January 9, 1992, the then - WP:DATE and get rid of "the"- Within two years of the accident insurance companies and the North Carolina business lobby collaboratively introduced legislation - did it pass? We have to say.
- Looking at the ref here, it certainly suggests it was passed - otherwise why make a big thing of it? Is there any way of confirming this, and if not, is the hinting of a pass by a source sufficient to say it did? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abbie Covington red link - will the mayor of a city of 6000 really qualify for a future article?- many survivors had passed away, mostly due to complications from their injuries - In 9 years? Wow. How many?
- I can find no reference that says - sorry. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References need authors, dates, etc. For example, what you call Fedlink seems to be a 2002 Washington Post article by Wil Haygood - all that is imortant. See {{cite web}} and relatives, fill in as many of those as you can.
--AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The references still need improvement, with authors, dates, titles, publications, etc., like the {{cite}} templates. I have to keep opposing until that's done. Some of the other things may be minor, but this isn't acceptable for FA. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is on my to-do list, I will se to it that it gets done. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The references still need improvement, with authors, dates, titles, publications, etc., like the {{cite}} templates. I have to keep opposing until that's done. Some of the other things may be minor, but this isn't acceptable for FA. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. Seems good, though I see multiply minor issues that require some attention.
- POV'ish sentences and words:
- "Tragedies", "claimed lives", "so..." (covert to "as a result"), and anything to informs the readers of issues in adding information or the writing progress (e.g. "although too bulky to list in full").
Remove the last sentence in the "Fire" section as a duplicate of a summarily fact already found in the lead.
Sole years or months altogether shouldn't be linked per WP:DATE.
- "References in popular culture" needs to be converted to a complete paragraph.
- Why? That's how similar sections are layed out accross Wikipedia. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under the "Recommendations" section remove the link on "final report" and convert it to a reference instead in the end of the paragraph.
- Adding a collection of other fire disasters you consider to have also killed "a lot" under the "See also" section is POV. Instead, list articles such as Industrial disasters and Disaster.
- That's not at all how the "See also" is layed out - as it says in the article, "All of the tragedies above involved people being trapped behind locked doors or windows, or doors that could not be pushed open." Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What would be better is start a new section and link those disasters to the development of the fire codes and regulations in the USA and other countries. Better context than a straight list. In other words, it is better to briefly describe why you are mentioning the articles, rather than a group rationalisation - groups of articles are better dealt with by categories. You could create a category to put all those articles in and add this article to that category. Carcharoth 17:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the article should contain a brief explanation of what the disaster is (e.g. "The 1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire took is an industrial disaster that took place at the...").
"Immediate aftermath" - Since aftermath is long-term by definition, this should either renamed it to "Controversy" or "Reaction". Following the rename change the second section to "Aftermath".
- If a paragraph relies on a single reference, add it only at its end. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 17:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can you get pictures of the memorials? Carcharoth 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.