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
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.
"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?
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. ~
TailsWx21:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"in Preble County, Ohio after" → need comma after "Ohio" per
MOS:GEOCOMMA
"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
"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
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?
@
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. ~
TailsWx04:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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.