Talk:1990 ARCO explosion

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 DanCherek (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that two major petrochemical explosions in the Greater Houston area, the 1990 ARCO explosion and the Phillips disaster, occurred within one year of each other? Source: Los Angeles Times
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Squeaky Bean

Created by JJonahJackalope (talk). Self-nominated at 02:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC).

• Ooh this looks interesting. I'll review this when I get the chance.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:16, 26 January 2022 (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 eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - Would it be possible to reword the hook to remove at least one of the years? Because at the moment, it seems obvious that something that happened in 1990 happened within one year of something that happened in 1989. I was only interested earlier because I'm from Texas haha.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: See above.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Bait30, I reformatted the hook to remove one of the years. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Awesome!  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Promoting to Prep 3. DanCherek (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1990 ARCO explosion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 05:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

There are only a few copy changes needed for this article to make GA. JJonahJackalope, this will go on a 7-day hold; ping me when the copy changes are done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Copy changes

Background

• First paragraph: move the period after the quotation marks. We use logical quotation, which does differ from usual American English.
  • Done.

Aftermath

• First sentence in the first section and the fourth and fifth sentences in the second section need the same logical quotation fix as above. The other quotes are fine with their punctuation since it applies to the quoted material.
  • Done.
• "Beaumont, Texas" needs a MOS:GEOCOMMA following it.
  • Done.
• "July 23, 1990" needs a MOS:DATECOMMA following it.
  • Done.
• Consider linking Process hazard analysis, which would help with the few links in that section.
  • Done.
• "largescale" should be written "large-scale"
  • Done.

Other items

• The lone image is PD and alt-tagged.
• References are archived.
• Earwig throws some high-ish copyvio numbers due to quotes and organizational names (esp. OSHA), but there are in actuality no issues.

Sammi Brie, just wanted to ping you to let you know that edits have been made to the article to address the comments and requests in this review. Thank you again for starting this review, and if you have any further questions, comments, or concerns, please reach out. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks good; I see all the changes made. Passing for GA. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Name

I suggest the article name be changed to "Arco Chemical Channelview, Texas explosion". It will then show up in searches for ARCO, Arco Chemical and Channelview. The date is not needed in the title as there are no other Channelview, Texas explosion articles. The Channelview site was owned and operated by Arco Chemical, an 80% owned subsidiary of ARCO, at the time of the explosion. Sandcherry (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)