Richmond, Indiana, facility fire is currently a World history
good article nominee. Nominated by ~
TailsWx (
🐾,
⛈️) at 16:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the
good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a
good article.
Short description: 2023 plastics processing facility fire in Richmond, Indiana
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
A fact from Richmond, Indiana, facility fire appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 April 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that three years prior to last month's massive plastics fire in Indiana, a court determined that the site was a fire hazard "unsafe to people and property"?
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?
TailsWx17:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
@
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)reply
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)reply
"prompting response from emergency managements" → "emergency managements" strikes me as a little strangely-worded, perhaps "emergency management agencies"?
what is the relevance of the state police responding to a fire?
"in Preble County, Ohio after" → need comma after "Ohio" per
MOS:GEOCOMMA
"The fire was contained on April 16, six days after the fire started" → repetitive, replace second "the fire" with "it"
"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
Background
Remove comma in first sentence
Mention and link Richmond in the first sentence when you're talking about the facility
"facility in 2022, after Smith" → remove comma
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
"became further problematic" → awkward wording; maybe "became more problematic" or "became more dangerous"?
"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"
"Two firefighters were injured; including one" → comma instead of semicolon
Aftermath
Overall, this section suffers a bit from
WP:PROSELINE as four of five paragraphs begin "On/In [date]..."
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
"from the facility fire several hours" → you can just say "from the fire"; don't need to specify "facility fire" at this point
"Higher levels of metals" → higher than normal? higher than healthy levels?
"regarding the building after they had obtained the building" → reword to eliminate repetition
"removing debris from the site of the facility fire" → "of the fire", as above
Any reason why metric units (metric tonnes/kg) are used instead of imperial units?
"from the facility fire site" → "from the site" since you've already described where they took the materials from
"at the facility fire site" → ditto
"the City of Richmond" → this phrase is used several times throughout the article but always with "city" in lowercase; this should be consistent