Template:Did you know nominations/Olympic Pipeline Explosion
The following is an archived discussion of Olympic Pipeline Explosion's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Mentoz86 (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Olympic Pipeline explosion edit
... that the smoke from the Olympic Pipeline explosion was visible from over 60 miles (97 km) away?
Created by Ego White Tray (talk). Self nominated at 04:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC).
Generally an interesting article which meets notability, is long enough, and has fairly good tone. I fixed a minor grammar point, but there are two important issues I believe need to be addressed:
- The hook statement of 60 miles is not cited in the source. It states Vancouver to Anacortes; a quick check on google maps shows Vancouver to be north and Anacortes south, 60 miles apart. Bellingham is between the two so the smoke was not recorded as visible 60 miles away. The hook could cite the fact that the plume was 30000ft high which is recorded in the source, and the claim in the article rewritten.
- The article relies entirely on a single source. That source does meet WP:RS as it claims review by professional staff prior to publication, and the source itself provides multiple citations. These (or others) should be researched by the creator and some cited appropriately within the article to show a broader range of good secondary sources. Once this is done the stub template also needs removing before going to DYK. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 20:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- ALT-1... that the smoke from the Olympic Pipeline explosion reached 30,000 feet (9,100 m) high?
- As far as other sources, I do have some in mind (if I remember correctly, the final report on the investigation is online, and the Washington State Dept of Ecology has a page summarizing the regulatory response), but I have a full time job and only so many hours in the day. If you're going to insist on other sources, you're going to have to wait. And if you wait, maybe you want to wait until June 10th, the event's 14th anniversary. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's not me insisting on other sources, I also have a full-time job and have taken time to review your article at your request using Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines as the basis, it is this set of guidelines which "generally requires" multiple sources (D2). If the article had not been submitted for DYK someone might have just put on {{Template:One source}} and it could be referenced at your (or someone else's) convenience. An article which is to be promoted on the main page must, by nature, represent the best of Wikipedia's content, especially with regard to core policies such as Wikipedia:Verifiability (also considering that some material is potentially contentious as it concerns the reputation of a major business). If you're not happy with the way I've interpreted the DYK rules then of course I'm fine with another editor being asked to give a second opinion. As I said, I think the article is deserving of inclusion in DYK once the source issue is addressed, as you have already offered an ALT hook above and fixed the article text. It's also not me who is going to have to wait, it is yourself who has nominated the article for DYK and want it to be included there; you already have identified sources and I would guess it wouldn't take much more than an hour to read them to confirm that the article agrees with them and cite them. I like the idea of putting it on main page on its anniversary though, the hook would need adjusting along the lines of "on this day in 1999 the smoke (etc)", once the references are in place you can apply the DYK?again template to ask another editor to review again and then it can be moved to Special Occasion Holding Area (although I'm not sure exactly how that sits with the note about no more than six weeks before, if other editors are happy I think this is a justified exception). Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 23:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
What's happening with this nomination? It's been nine days since the above. I do agree that more than a single source is needed, and in some places has left the article a bit too close to the source, both structurally and in wording; compare, for instance, the article's "The first was Liam Wood, 18, who was fly fishing in the creek" to the source's "The first victim was Liam Gordon Wood, age 18, who was fly fishing in Whatcom Creek". There are also a couple of paragraphs that are not sourced, including the Background section which contains a number of facts not available from the given source including the current BP ownership. Incidentally, I don't think this hook justifies doubling our maximum wait period for special occasion hooks: June 10 is too far away. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- 2nd review: There was a contradiction between the lead giving 4.55pm (source 1) and in "disaster" section 5.02pm (source 2) for the explosion ; I have added a 3rd source supporting the 5.02pm time (actually states "just after 5PM"), this was written by a local witness and published by the trust maintaining a memorial to the disaster. According to source 2 4.55pm was the time evacuation began. Also I have found and added a reference for current ownership per BlueMoonset's request above.
To summarise: ALT-1 hook meets format and length standards, hook fact is stated in article and checks with source. Article is now adequately sourced, long enough and has been partly re-written to reduce its closeness to one of the sources. Good to go. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 15:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)