Talk:Richmond, Indiana, facility fire

Notability?

This seems to be to be a non-important event in the grand scheme of things. WP:NEVENT requires a lasting impact, and it may be WP:TOOSOON to see if that is met. BhamBoi (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, WP:LASTING states It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. If your point is the case, I'm leaning towards draftifying it once again, though should a third opinion also be requested on this? Tails Wx 17:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I want it kept, but I know events with no deaths like this often get rejected at AfC or deleted from mainspace at AfD. Like Draft:2023 La Salle fire got rejected, and seems to be to be a similar scale event. BhamBoi (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 Bruxton (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

View of the fire an hour after ignition

• ... that failure to address unsafe building concerns raised in 2019 led to a massive plastics fire in Indiana last month? Source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/12/us/indiana-richmond-fire-city-hearing/index.html
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Auto-GPT
  • Comment: If this does not run until May, "this month" should be changed to "last month."

Created by Tails Wx (talk). Nominated by 28bytes (talk) at 12:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Richmond, Indiana facility fire; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nice article, thank you for uploading this. Re copyvio, Earwig finds only proper names and common phrases, so I believe that this article is plagiarism-free.

• Note to promoter: articles about a big fire always draw attention, so I suggest that this one goes to DYK with its picture, please? Storye book (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Storye book, Tails Wx, and 28bytes: Our article does not state that the unsafe building conditions directly led to the cause of the fire. I do not see the two connected in our article. Bruxton (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: @Tails Wx and 28bytes: I had understood the hook to mean that the hazardous conditions in the building led to the massiveness of the fire, not to the cause of the fire (which apparently started in a truck parked next to the building). But I see what you mean, so I have struck ALT0. Please could we have an ALT1, which matches the source and the article precisely? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton and Storye book: How about this as ALT1:

• ALT1: ... that three years prior to last month's massive plastics fire in Indiana (pictured), a court determined that the site was a fire hazard "unsafe to people and property"? Source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/12/us/indiana-richmond-fire-city-hearing/index.html

28bytes (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@28bytes: the hook needs to be in the article and cited. I am not seeing this information in our article. Bruxton (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Sorry for the oversight, it is in there now. 28bytes (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

It works, just need @Storye book: to approve Bruxton (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Good to go, with ALT1 and image (note that if the hook is on the main page in May, the words "this month's" will have to be changed to "last month's".). Storye book (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Promoting, sorry but I did not find the image interesting. Someone can overrule me if they like. Bruxton (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

what is this facility actually called?

Like, what was its name at the time of the fire? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

My Way Trading Warehouse, it's supposed to be clarified, right? Tails Wx 00:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

gotcha, so maybe this article should be at My Way Trading House fire? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this, should a requested move be considered? Tails Wx 01:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Additional sources

• "City of Richmond: Warehouse Fire Information". April 14, 2023.
• "Toxic smoke from Indiana industrial fire forces evacuation order for 2,000". The Washington Post. April 11, 2023.
• "Richmond fire contained, water issues 'frustrating' - Western Wayne News". Western Wayne News. April 11, 2023.

28bytes (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richmond, Indiana, facility fire/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 16:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 22:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• "prompting response from emergency managements" → "emergency managements" strikes me as a little strangely-worded, perhaps "emergency management agencies"?

 Done! ~ Tails Wx 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• what is the relevance of the state police responding to a fire?

The state police is typically a more notable agency than local agencies, although they're all notable. I just went ahead and included the state police responding to it because of that. ~ Tails Wx 21:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• "in Preble County, Ohio after" → need comma after "Ohio" per MOS:GEOCOMMA

 Done! ~ Tails Wx 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• "The fire was contained on April 16, six days after the fire started" → repetitive, replace second "the fire" with "it"

 Done! ~ Tails Wx 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• "In the aftermath of the fire, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Indiana Department of Environmental Management evaluated hazards from the facility fire" → "fire" repeated again, this time I think it makes more sense to nix the first mention

 Done! ~ Tails Wx 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Background

• Remove comma in first sentence

 Done! ~ Tails Wx 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Mention and link Richmond in the first sentence when you're talking about the facility

 Done! ~ Tails Wx 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• "facility in 2022, after Smith" → remove comma

 Done! ~ Tails Wx 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Fire

• "by Richmond, Indiana mayor" → I don't think you need to specify Indiana since it's been mentioned previously; if you decide to keep it, it needs a comma after it

 Went ahead and removed "Indiana"! ~ Tails Wx 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• "became further problematic" → awkward wording; maybe "became more problematic" or "became more dangerous"?

 Went with "problematic", ~ Tails Wx 21:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• "with some bystanders moving close to it" → makes it sound like people got closer because of the explosions
• "Debris from the fire was found as far as New Paris, Ohio and" → need comma after "Ohio"

 Done! ~ Tails Wx 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Two firefighters were injured; including one" → comma instead of semicolon

 Done! ~ Tails Wx 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

• Overall, this section suffers a bit from WP:PROSELINE as four of five paragraphs begin "On/In [date]..."

Re-worded the beginning of two of them; if more needs to be re-worded I'm happy to do so! ~ Tails Wx 21:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note EPA and IDEM abbreviations on first mention in this section and just use those rather than full names in the rest of the section

 Done! ~ Tails Wx 21:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• "from the facility fire several hours" → you can just say "from the fire"; don't need to specify "facility fire" at this point

 Done! ~ Tails Wx 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Higher levels of metals" → higher than normal? higher than healthy levels?

"Elevated" according to sources; therefore placed "higher than normal". ~ Tails Wx 21:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• "regarding the building after they had obtained the building" → reword to eliminate repetition

 Done ~ Tails Wx 21:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• "removing debris from the site of the facility fire" → "of the fire", as above

 Done! ~ Tails Wx 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• Any reason why metric units (metric tonnes/kg) are used instead of imperial units?

Nah, just went with lb/kg. ~ Tails Wx 21:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• "from the facility fire site" → "from the site" since you've already described where they took the materials from

 Done! ~ Tails Wx 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• "at the facility fire site" → ditto

 Done! ~ Tails Wx 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

• "the City of Richmond" → this phrase is used several times throughout the article but always with "city" in lowercase; this should be consistent

 Done! ~ Tails Wx 21:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what I've got. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

PCN02WPS, all your comments have been addressed, thanks for taking up this review! :) ~ Tails Wx 21:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Just a couple more things I spotted:

• The units were updated from tonnes to lbs but the numbers were not converted, so the figures there are not correct (used to say 6,000 tonnes but now says 6,000 pounds, which are very different)
• More minor wording issue, but "Aftermath" talks about the EPA collecting samples one month after the fire but later says that the EPA began to collect samples seven months after the fire, so maybe "began" could be replaced with another word?
• "In the aftermath of it" --> "in its aftermath"

PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS: I fixed two of the three concerns outlined above; though the second point doesn’t make sense to me. The EPA did take samples one month after the fire, but didn’t collect any during the cleanup process seven months after. It does say the hazardous waste was transferred to a EPA-mandated landfill but didn’t sample during that process. ~ Tails Wx 04:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, I think I misinterpreted that when I first read it. Thanks for clarifying! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.