Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nominee2006 Falk Corporation explosion was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 13, 2006 Articles for deletionKept
March 8, 2007 Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Renaming

I think that the article should be renamed to include the company name as in the case of the PEPCON disaster. After all, those injured and killed were concentrated to the company and not spread over the city (correct me if am wrong). My suggestion Falk corporation explosion. -- rxnd ( t | € | c ) 11:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Whilst, generally speaking, I would opose such a move, in this instance I am going to (albeit, a little reluctantly) agree since it puts the article into a better context, as you rightly say. Also, this is an encyclopaedic record, so we have to think of it in the terms of a historic event (even if it is tagged as a current event), meaning that in 5-10 years time someone may not immediatly be reminded simply by the present title about the subject, but the one suggested is more likely to jog people's memory, which is what a descriptive title should, by definition, do. However, I'd recommend leaving the move 'till the AfD is complete, just in case it screws it up in unforseen ways (but I wouldn't expect that anyway). Blood red sandman 17:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree with the change, and I agree with waiting. Parradoxx 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Referring to this as the 2006 Milwaukee explosion is an appropriate title. The event is directly related to the city as well as the company. Renaming it the Falk explosions makes it seem not very important or significant.++ aviper2k7++ 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:DM has recently decided upon an official naming convention for disasters. The article currently follows the convention, so we should keep it that way. Renaming as proposed would violate the convention. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Personally I think Falk Corporation explosion would be more appropriate. The current title is just weird to me. Putting a year in the title implies there are notable Milwaukee explosions in other years. (I can't think of any in recent memory, and I'm from Milwaukee.) Also I don't see how a WikiProject can determine something like this, as so many disaster articles already exist which don't conform to WP:DM's naming convention. See LZ 129 Hindenburg, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (recent FA - neither of which indicate a location or year in the title. -- Fang Aili talk 22:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Hmm... this is going nowhere - as a low traffic article, there simply arem't enought interested readers passing by. I'm going to put in a request for discusion at WP:DM. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply

My opinion is that in cases like this, where an event probably doesn't have a recognised name, we have to use a descriptive one. Following the recently established disasters naming convention is one possibility, though that convention shouldn't be applied rigidly. If another name is better, use that instead. Also, it is best to make a sustained effort to try and see whether a name has 'taken hold' in the media an literature, and use that. Then use lots of redirects to cover 4-5 other possible names, based on what people might search for. The categories should cover these as well. The point about descriptive names is that they are malleable, and change over time. Close to the event in time, there seems little need to mention the date, and the location is used to identify the event. A few centuries later, the date becomes more important than the location. In the local area, there is little need to identify the location, and the date is often used to name the event. Compare Good Friday Earthquake with Great Alaska Earthquake and 1964 Alaska earthquake. The other thing is, that though this event seems notable now, it is possible that in 100 years time, it will be no more than a footnote in history. So my advice is to create a lot of redirects, see what name is most commonly used to refer to the event, and if that fails, toss a coin. And remember to put common names used for the event in bold in the first few sentences. Carcharoth 20:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I have now moved the article to the present title - 2006 Falk Corporation explosion. Note the year is nescesary as Falk had two other explosions (see the article), including a fatal one that damaged a vehicle almost a mile away, and is almost certainly notable in it's own right. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b ( MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c ( OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
  7. Pass/Fail:
    a Well written:
    b Factually accurate:
    c Broad in coverage:
    d NPOV:
    e Stable:
    f Images:
    g Overall:

If the article failed the nomination, the comments below will help in addressing the problems. Once these tasks are accomplished, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review. You can see how I, personally, applied the six criteria above at this link. I sincerely thank you for your work so far.

If your article passed the nomination, congratulations on making Wikipedia all the better. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. If you didn't know there is a groovy user box, {{ User Good Articles}}, for those users who have significantly contributed to a good article. The " essay" linked above is also how the criteria are applied to passing articles as well. Thanks again for your hard work.

Review by: IvoShandor


Review by: IvoShandor

More Specific Comments:

  • Criteria #1: Well written.
  • Prose:
  • Less than compelling. Quite choppy at parts. The first paragraph of the 'Falk Corporation' section should probably be rewritten for a better flow.
  • Use far less time dependent terminology, such as 'recently,' 'to date' and similar phrases, they can quickly become outdated and make an article harder to maintain.
  • Structure
  • 'Legal action' could probably be merged with 'Aftermath', it is something that could be construed as a slant in the article against the company.
  • MOS
  • Copy edit the entire thing, have some users unassociated with the article look over sometimes it is easy to miss one's own mistakes.
  • Perhaps some non notable red links in here, perhaps, the affiliated projects surely would have a better idea than I.
  • Criteria #2: Verifiable
  • Decent I wonder, though, are there any voices from outside of the Milwaukee area?
  • Criteria #3: Thoroughness
  • Fairly thorough coverage, although I question if the talk about previous Falk disasters is necessary. As it automatically asserts in the reader's mind, this is obviously the company's fault, look they have a record, that info would be more pertinent to the Falk Corporation article under a history section. It looks almost as if you are trying to establish precedent for the explosion.
  • Criteria #4: NPOV
  • Fair representation:
  • This criteria needs to be worked on. The Falk Corporation section has one subsection, a prominent, 'Previous disasters involving the Falk Corporation,' is there nothing else related to the article topic that is worthy of a subsection. It creates POV at just a glance, a reader needn't even read the article to see which way it is slanted.
  • Certainly the company launched its own investigation as well?
  • Terms like 'although' and 'however' are sneaky POV words.
  • The sparse mentioning of the company involvement needs to be worked on. The only things mentioned are blame casting, a donation, but surely they haven't stood idly by and not investigated the events, what has the company said about that day. That's important for POV, despite the inclusion of the bits about their donation and plans to rebuild.
  • See comment under Criteria #2 above.
  • See comment under Criteria #3 above.
  • Criteria #5: Stable
  • Yes
  • Criteria #6: Images
    No images. Free use is probably hard to come by, unless you or someone you know took some pictures. But I am inclined to think that a fair use justification may be applicable, someone else would know more. This criteria didn't affect my decision. Images are nice though.

IvoShandor 09:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comments

If I had a camera at the time, I would've had a picture (drove right by it). I guess you can't claim fair use then. Maybe we could make a diagram of the impact, I'd be happy if you give me a rough sketch. I can also see if I can take a picture of the building now.++ aviper2k7++ 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, those would certainly help. I'm also hopeful that once the official investigation ends the final report will contain some public-domain images we can use, too. My only other comment to add in response to the above is that, so far as I can tell, the Falk Corporation did not launch it's own investigation. All other issues will be resolved over coming weeks. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
If it is the case that they did not launch an investigation, confirm and add that. I tweaked my template so I tweaked the stuff above. Glad to hear that those involved with the article are moving on the other stuff. I think this article has great potential. Has anyone considered adding a current event tag to it? Might qualify. As for the photos, that's too bad, you never know, maybe someone will come along and ul them to Commons or something. I like the idea of some sort of graphic illustration, it could greatly enhance the article. Good luck and happy editing. IvoShandor 07:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Although I doubt the whole article qualifies, I've place a tag stating that the section on the legal issues is current (when the info is merged, the aftermath section will pick up that tag). To aviper2k7 - if it would help for producing a diagram of the building, I may be able to track down some arial images I saw of the plant before and after the explosion on a JS article. I don't know if it will be nescescary, though, as I have never personally seen the structure in question, so maybe you can see it easily enough for it without the photos? Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Copyedit

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 17:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2006 Falk Corporation explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2006 Falk Corporation explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2006_Falk_Corporation_explosion&oldid=1196482604"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nominee2006 Falk Corporation explosion was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 13, 2006 Articles for deletionKept
March 8, 2007 Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Renaming

I think that the article should be renamed to include the company name as in the case of the PEPCON disaster. After all, those injured and killed were concentrated to the company and not spread over the city (correct me if am wrong). My suggestion Falk corporation explosion. -- rxnd ( t | € | c ) 11:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply

Whilst, generally speaking, I would opose such a move, in this instance I am going to (albeit, a little reluctantly) agree since it puts the article into a better context, as you rightly say. Also, this is an encyclopaedic record, so we have to think of it in the terms of a historic event (even if it is tagged as a current event), meaning that in 5-10 years time someone may not immediatly be reminded simply by the present title about the subject, but the one suggested is more likely to jog people's memory, which is what a descriptive title should, by definition, do. However, I'd recommend leaving the move 'till the AfD is complete, just in case it screws it up in unforseen ways (but I wouldn't expect that anyway). Blood red sandman 17:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
I agree with the change, and I agree with waiting. Parradoxx 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Referring to this as the 2006 Milwaukee explosion is an appropriate title. The event is directly related to the city as well as the company. Renaming it the Falk explosions makes it seem not very important or significant.++ aviper2k7++ 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
WP:DM has recently decided upon an official naming convention for disasters. The article currently follows the convention, so we should keep it that way. Renaming as proposed would violate the convention. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 11:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Personally I think Falk Corporation explosion would be more appropriate. The current title is just weird to me. Putting a year in the title implies there are notable Milwaukee explosions in other years. (I can't think of any in recent memory, and I'm from Milwaukee.) Also I don't see how a WikiProject can determine something like this, as so many disaster articles already exist which don't conform to WP:DM's naming convention. See LZ 129 Hindenburg, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (recent FA - neither of which indicate a location or year in the title. -- Fang Aili talk 22:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC) reply
Hmm... this is going nowhere - as a low traffic article, there simply arem't enought interested readers passing by. I'm going to put in a request for discusion at WP:DM. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply

My opinion is that in cases like this, where an event probably doesn't have a recognised name, we have to use a descriptive one. Following the recently established disasters naming convention is one possibility, though that convention shouldn't be applied rigidly. If another name is better, use that instead. Also, it is best to make a sustained effort to try and see whether a name has 'taken hold' in the media an literature, and use that. Then use lots of redirects to cover 4-5 other possible names, based on what people might search for. The categories should cover these as well. The point about descriptive names is that they are malleable, and change over time. Close to the event in time, there seems little need to mention the date, and the location is used to identify the event. A few centuries later, the date becomes more important than the location. In the local area, there is little need to identify the location, and the date is often used to name the event. Compare Good Friday Earthquake with Great Alaska Earthquake and 1964 Alaska earthquake. The other thing is, that though this event seems notable now, it is possible that in 100 years time, it will be no more than a footnote in history. So my advice is to create a lot of redirects, see what name is most commonly used to refer to the event, and if that fails, toss a coin. And remember to put common names used for the event in bold in the first few sentences. Carcharoth 20:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I have now moved the article to the present title - 2006 Falk Corporation explosion. Note the year is nescesary as Falk had two other explosions (see the article), including a fatal one that damaged a vehicle almost a mile away, and is almost certainly notable in it's own right. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b ( MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c ( OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
  7. Pass/Fail:
    a Well written:
    b Factually accurate:
    c Broad in coverage:
    d NPOV:
    e Stable:
    f Images:
    g Overall:

If the article failed the nomination, the comments below will help in addressing the problems. Once these tasks are accomplished, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review. You can see how I, personally, applied the six criteria above at this link. I sincerely thank you for your work so far.

If your article passed the nomination, congratulations on making Wikipedia all the better. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. If you didn't know there is a groovy user box, {{ User Good Articles}}, for those users who have significantly contributed to a good article. The " essay" linked above is also how the criteria are applied to passing articles as well. Thanks again for your hard work.

Review by: IvoShandor


Review by: IvoShandor

More Specific Comments:

  • Criteria #1: Well written.
  • Prose:
  • Less than compelling. Quite choppy at parts. The first paragraph of the 'Falk Corporation' section should probably be rewritten for a better flow.
  • Use far less time dependent terminology, such as 'recently,' 'to date' and similar phrases, they can quickly become outdated and make an article harder to maintain.
  • Structure
  • 'Legal action' could probably be merged with 'Aftermath', it is something that could be construed as a slant in the article against the company.
  • MOS
  • Copy edit the entire thing, have some users unassociated with the article look over sometimes it is easy to miss one's own mistakes.
  • Perhaps some non notable red links in here, perhaps, the affiliated projects surely would have a better idea than I.
  • Criteria #2: Verifiable
  • Decent I wonder, though, are there any voices from outside of the Milwaukee area?
  • Criteria #3: Thoroughness
  • Fairly thorough coverage, although I question if the talk about previous Falk disasters is necessary. As it automatically asserts in the reader's mind, this is obviously the company's fault, look they have a record, that info would be more pertinent to the Falk Corporation article under a history section. It looks almost as if you are trying to establish precedent for the explosion.
  • Criteria #4: NPOV
  • Fair representation:
  • This criteria needs to be worked on. The Falk Corporation section has one subsection, a prominent, 'Previous disasters involving the Falk Corporation,' is there nothing else related to the article topic that is worthy of a subsection. It creates POV at just a glance, a reader needn't even read the article to see which way it is slanted.
  • Certainly the company launched its own investigation as well?
  • Terms like 'although' and 'however' are sneaky POV words.
  • The sparse mentioning of the company involvement needs to be worked on. The only things mentioned are blame casting, a donation, but surely they haven't stood idly by and not investigated the events, what has the company said about that day. That's important for POV, despite the inclusion of the bits about their donation and plans to rebuild.
  • See comment under Criteria #2 above.
  • See comment under Criteria #3 above.
  • Criteria #5: Stable
  • Yes
  • Criteria #6: Images
    No images. Free use is probably hard to come by, unless you or someone you know took some pictures. But I am inclined to think that a fair use justification may be applicable, someone else would know more. This criteria didn't affect my decision. Images are nice though.

IvoShandor 09:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comments

If I had a camera at the time, I would've had a picture (drove right by it). I guess you can't claim fair use then. Maybe we could make a diagram of the impact, I'd be happy if you give me a rough sketch. I can also see if I can take a picture of the building now.++ aviper2k7++ 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Yes, those would certainly help. I'm also hopeful that once the official investigation ends the final report will contain some public-domain images we can use, too. My only other comment to add in response to the above is that, so far as I can tell, the Falk Corporation did not launch it's own investigation. All other issues will be resolved over coming weeks. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
If it is the case that they did not launch an investigation, confirm and add that. I tweaked my template so I tweaked the stuff above. Glad to hear that those involved with the article are moving on the other stuff. I think this article has great potential. Has anyone considered adding a current event tag to it? Might qualify. As for the photos, that's too bad, you never know, maybe someone will come along and ul them to Commons or something. I like the idea of some sort of graphic illustration, it could greatly enhance the article. Good luck and happy editing. IvoShandor 07:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Although I doubt the whole article qualifies, I've place a tag stating that the section on the legal issues is current (when the info is merged, the aftermath section will pick up that tag). To aviper2k7 - if it would help for producing a diagram of the building, I may be able to track down some arial images I saw of the plant before and after the explosion on a JS article. I don't know if it will be nescescary, though, as I have never personally seen the structure in question, so maybe you can see it easily enough for it without the photos? Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Copyedit

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 17:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2006 Falk Corporation explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2006 Falk Corporation explosion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2006_Falk_Corporation_explosion&oldid=1196482604"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE