Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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.

1991 Hamlet chicken processing plant fire

edit

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]
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]

--AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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.
Sorted Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sole years or months altogether shouldn't be linked per WP:DATE.
Sorted Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
Sorted Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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...").
Sorted Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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".
Sorted Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:30, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1991_Hamlet_chicken_processing_plant_fire&oldid=1136099242"