Benton fireworks disaster is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of
Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] •
[Project Page] •
[Project Talk] •
[Assessment] •
[Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
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 Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
occupational safety and health 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.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Explosives 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.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
I don't know if "industrial disaster" is the best way to describe this incident. This was an illegal operation, not a licensed industry.
Bmag32 (
talk)
17:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)reply
This is a pretty good article, reads well, and is probably about c or b-class. It needs to things, though- exact location and more info about the after math.
Location- I know the approximate location but have not get been able to find exactly where it is located.
Aftermath/ What happened to the farm, the site today, the event in popular culture, etc.
Subject appears to qualify under WP:GNG, along with having sustained coverage
The prose is from a neutral point of view
It gives a good amount of background of the incident along with a fairly depicted aftermath
The details and short quotes describing the explosion were very helpful in understanding the immensity of it
Needs improvement
References
The references to Youtube are not appropriate as they are not from reputable outlets and their sources cannot be verified
References to inflation calculators are not inappropriate, but aren't terribly helpful
References to "gendisasters.com" are also not considered reliable sources, best to reference the secondary sources directly
Content
There are a few minor grammatical errors. For example, at the bottom of the "Investigation" section..
...explosion to a direct hit from a powerful bomb."
that last quote shouldn't be there
It would be nice to have a few more images in there, I know that's not always possible, but at least a map of where it happened would be nice
Overall, I think it's very close, the narrative is very descriptive and the it covers the subject in a good amount of detail. Just need the prior cleaned up.
Drewmutt(^ᴥ^)talk01:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Drewmutt: Before I get started, I'd like to point out a few things. First, I had 3 other images, but they were determined unnecessary per
this discussion. Those were the best quality images I could find. Also, I have access to the news reports from '83 that are on YouTube (I purchased from the station's archives), but the one from 2008 was actually uploaded by the news station. Does that not qualify it as reliable? It is citing the station, not YouTube. I was also wondering if some of the interviews were a little too excessive.
Bneu2013 (
talk)
06:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Update: I've fixed some grammar errors, including the one listed, and reworded some sentences a little. I removed the inflation data and calculator. I replaced the references on YouTube with the actual media in the videos, provided to me by the news stations. I was able to find a copy of one of the Gendisasters artices on Newspapers.com, but for the other, I have replaced with different sources which are consistent with the former. Not done yet, but not too far.
Bneu2013 (
talk)
07:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment
The following text is insufficiently paraphrased from the source material, per
WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE:
"A U.S. District Court Judge handed Bramblett two ten-year sentences for taking part in the illegal manufacture of the explosives and for fifteen counts of causing illegal fireworks to be transported across state lines and one count of illegally dealing in explosives."
"He sentenced Bramblett, 54, to 10 years for taking part in the illegal manufacture of explosives and concurrent 10-year terms for each of 15 counts of causing illegal fireworks to be transported across state lines and one count of illegally dealing in explosives."[1]
Bneu2013Aircorn, please also accept my apologies, life has gotten a bit tricky as of late and has been consuming much of my time. I'm not sure when I'll be able to devote more time on-wiki, so, if there's another reviewer available, I welcome them to take another look.
Drewmutt(^ᴥ^)talk23:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Don't seem to be any outstanding issues from the above review. I will have a read through it tonight and post any other queries below.
AIRcorn(talk)22:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Comments
Generally very good and probably almost there. A few comments below.
Some of the sentences get a bit long. For example
A massive explosion at an unlicensed fireworks factory producing illegal fireworks killed eleven, injured one, and revealed the existence of the factory for the first time to law enforcement and the public.
The event gained national attention, covered by multiple media outlets, and eventually led to the conviction of a number of people including the owner, a man who was considered to be the mastermind, and several others who conspired to manufacture, transport, or allow the fireworks manufactured at the operation to be transported.
You might want to consider breaking them up some
I have issues with been reported to have been the largest illegal fireworks operation in history
Who reported this, feel it needs attribution.
In history is a grand claim and a little weaselly. How can this even be verified as being illegal fireworks there are likely some that have not been discovered.
This is not expanded on in the body. Generally the lead should be a summary of the body and not present new information. A statement like this needs to be expanded on.
Not sure the source is good enough for such a strong claim.
Comment - this is a bit of a strong claim, but if you look at other large illegal fireworks operations, this one passes them all in terms of income and number of fireworks manufactured. For clarification, this operation was illegal not just because the fireworks manufactured are outlawed, but also because this operation was secret and unlicensed.
Bneu2013 (
talk)
00:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Sorry, this sounds too much like original research. I am not comfortable with this unless it is attributed or has stronger sources.
AIRcorn(talk)08:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)reply
He was considered by many to be the mastermind of the operation. Many is vague. Can we expand on who this many is.
The initial blast was followed over the next several minutes by several smaller blasts which witnesses described as sounding like shotguns, believed to have been from individual firework cases which were not detonated in the initial blast Pretty repetitive sentence (initial blast and which are used twice). Feel ther should be a parenthetical comma, but might not be needed if sentence is rearranged.
Would the list of dead be better presented as a table or list. It is a bit hard to make sense of.
Comment - I chose not to originally because there are really no other major aspects that could be included in a table (such as different causes of death).
Bneu2013 (
talk)
00:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Federal firearms agents also found husks eight to ten inches in length and three to four inches in diameter] which prompted Polk County deputies to speculate that some of the explosives were being purchased by people with criminal intents, such as terrorists What are husks eight to ten inches in length and three to four inches in diameter and how does this lead to terrorism? Feel this needs expanding, or if it is just speculation it is probably not required.
Fixed - "Husks" refers to fireworks casings. Authorities speculated that due to this large size (considerably larger than most fireworks), some customers might be using these for criminal activities.
Bneu2013 (
talk)
00:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Linda Sue Webb told authorities that she believed that they were "trying something new." This quote doesn't seem to add anything. What is meant by it?
Feel the whole aftermath section could be tightened up some. Brambketts sentencing is confusing. It seems to be conflating two sentencings. I don't think it needs the
WP:proseline style or the exact dates for every action, particularly as it happened so long ago. I also don't like the last sentence. It seem like it is referenced to the address. This is too close to original research and unless a reliable secondary source brings it up I feel it is undue and not notable.
Comment - Final source is a copy of the property deed at the Polk County Register of Deeds Office. One can verify this source by visiting there or contacting them.
Bneu2013 (
talk)
00:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Happy with the references. Only one I had some doubt about was Beyond The Body Farm,it seems a bit sensationalist. If it is not used for to controversial info I think it is alright.
@
Bneu2013: Not sure if you saw my replies above. I have two issues still.
One with it being reported as the largest illegal fireworks operation in history. To have this in the lead it needs to be expanded on in the articles body. I would be happy with a single sentence attributing who has said it was the largest in history. Better would be to expand on it like you have here as to why it is considered the largest.
AIRcorn(talk)16:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
This claim feels hyperbolic to me. The two words largest and operation need to be defined. When we say largest, which metric are we using to gauge this by? Are we referring to the amount of fireworks being handled by an operation, or does largest refer to the number of people working within that particular blackmarket. The nature of any blackmarket is that it is difficult to gauge an organization's size. If largest means the quantity of fireworks which were destroyed, other explosions may have been larger than the ones listed under
Category:Illegal fireworks operations. Usually disasters are ranked by a body count, in which case this would definitely not be the largest. spintendo 17:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Not overly happy with using a primary source to tie the current business at the location to the disaster. I can probably let this one slide if you are adamant it adds value to the article.
AIRcorn(talk)16:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Aircorn:,
Spintendo I have removed the sentence about the operation being the largest. I do agree that this is controversial, and that the book is not the best source for this. By largest, I believe it refers to the profits of the operation.
Bneu2013 (
talk)
23:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)reply
The summary of this article (i.e. the table containing the basic facts) lists just one man accused and the same convicted, but the article shows that many people were charged and several of those were also convicted. Isn't the table misleading as it is? Shouldn't all the names appear? (Or at least name all those who were convicted, and perhaps just a number stating how many were charged but not convicted)
TooManyFingers (
talk)
04:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)reply