Talk:2020 Colonial Pipeline oil spill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconEnvironment Low‑importance
WikiProject icon
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: North Carolina Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

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 Bruxton (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by JJonahJackalope (talk). Self-nominated at 15:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @JJonahJackalope: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pulling hook from prep and reopening nomination; at 263 prose characters, the hook is so far above the maximum of 200 that it cannot run, and should not have been approved or promoted. Pinging nominator JJonahJackalope, reviewer Onegreatjoke, and promoter Bruxton. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, thanks for the message when they work it out ping me. Bruxton (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot about that rule. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Onegreatjoke and Bruxton, sorry about the length, I edited the hook to be within the 200-character prose limit. Let me know if there are any more issues or comments! -JJonahJackalope (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Onegreatjoke Thanks, I will wait to hear from the reviewer. Bruxton (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
honestly. You could probably cut out the "where approximately 2,000,000 U.S. gallons (7,600,000 L) of gasoline leaked into a nature preserve in North Carolina," from the hook and still have a good hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Onegreatjoke, if it's all good, I think it would be best to keep that information, as it adds context and additional information. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Onegreatjoke what do you think about the nominator comment? Bruxton (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JJonahJackalope I like OGJ's idea. Bruxton (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Onegreatjoke Bruxton, I've edited the hook, does that work?-JJonahJackalope (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That and your other cut hook is fine by me. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. DimensionalFusion (talk) 21:02, 9 July 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:2020 Colonial Pipeline oil spill/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DimensionalFusion (talk · contribs) 22:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    The article's contents are written in prose and are understandable to the majority of readers, however detail is sometimes overabundant
    b. (
    lists
    )    :
    The article consists of mostly appropriate layout, however most paragraphs tend to be overly large and make it hard to break down the information
    I have made some edits to split some of the larger paragraphs into more manageable sections.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    The article is broadly verifiable and references are appropriately formatted
    b. (citations to
    reliable sources
    )    :
    Citations are broadly correct and claims are backed up by inline citations
    c. (OR):
    No original research is in the article
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    No copyrighted content is within the article
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    The article addresses the primary aspects of the topic in an appropriate manner
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    There are no obviously biased statements and is written in a descriptive manner
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No edit warring
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    All images are wikimedia sourced and copyright (CC) appropriate
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Media broadly matches the content of the article when
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    The article is generally well written, although there should be more paragraphs and less excessive detail

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

  1. DimensionalFusion, terribly sorry for the late reply to this, I've been busy with some irl stuff, but I reviewed the article and divided some of the larger paragraphs into smaller ones to aid in comprehension. Additionally, I am more than willing to trim out some of the more extraneous information for simplicity (I got the feeling when writing the article that there was quite a bit of detail with everything covered in the newspapers and websites), but was wondering if you had any more specific or concrete comments as far as specific changes you would recommend. Thank you for initiating this review, and if you have any comments, questions, or concerns, please reach out. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JJonahJackalope, the article mostly looks good now! Looks much less like a single mass of text now, so I'm going to go ahead and pass it DimensionalFusion (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Colonial_Pipeline_oil_spill&oldid=1196855192"