Template:Did you know nominations/Taylor oil spill

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Taylor oil spill

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the 2004 Taylor oil spill, one of the largest in the modern history of the Gulf of Mexico, continues to leak as much as 700 barrels of oil per day, and could continue for the next 100 years if not contained?

• Source 1: If SkyTruth's high-end estimate of 1.4 million gallons is accurate, Taylor's spill would be about 1 percent the size of BP's, which a judge ruled amounted to 134 million gallons. That would still make the Taylor spill the 8th largest in the Gulf since 1970, according to a list compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.[1]
• Source 2: Between 300 and 700 barrels of oil per day have been spewing from a site 12 miles off the Louisiana coast since 2004, when an oil-production platform owned by Taylor Energy sank in a mudslide triggered by Hurricane Ivan.[2]
• Source 3: BSEE's current estimate is that the oil discharge from the site, if left unchecked, could continue for 100 years or more.[3]
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nancy Lake State Recreation Area

Created/expanded by Anna Frodesiak (talk) and GreenMeansGo (talk). Nominated by GreenMeansGo (talk) at 18:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC).

• New article that's long enough, decently written, and sourced. Hook is good. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• There is close paraphrasing from this source:
• Source: Collaborative efforts have resulted in removal of the platform deck, removal of subsea debris, decommissioning of the oil pipeline, and efforts to plug nine of the 25 impacted wells. Despite these efforts, there is an ongoing oil discharge from Taylor Energy's MC-20 site.
• Article: collaborative efforts have resulted in removal of the platform deck, removal of subsea debris, decommissioning of the oil pipeline, and efforts to plug nine of the impacted wells ... but that despite these efforts, there is an ongoing oil discharge from the site.
• Yoninah (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: That's not close paraphrasing; that's a verbatim unattributed quote. But the content is the product of the US federal government, and as such is public domain. See also my edit summary when the passage was added attributing it as such. GMG^talk 13:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• @GreenMeansGo: Oh, that's good. I believe there also needs to be a line at the bottom of page indicating that text has been copied from a public domain source, with the link. Restoring tick per Morgan Ginsberg's review. Yoninah (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• There doesn't have to be. That's a WP:V issue, and for that there's already an inline citation (which is better than a general citation at the bottom). As the content is public domain, it doesn't require even attribution for copyright purposes, and as the public domain status rests on a PD dedication by the owner (the US govt), and not expiration of copyright, there are basically no international legal issues for reuse. GMG^talk 18:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)