Template:Did you know nominations/1963 Indiana State Fairgrounds Coliseum gas explosion
- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
1963 Indiana State Fairgrounds Coliseum gas explosion
- ...
that the 1963 Indiana State Fairgrounds Coliseum gas explosion was the worst indoor explosion in state history?Source: pg. 2, "The worst indoor explosion in Indiana"- ALT1: ... that a 1963 gas explosion in Indianapolis during a Holiday on Ice show has been called one of the worst disasters in Indiana history? Source: pg. 43, "the worst disaster in the state's history"
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Luther Holbert
Created by JJonahJackalope (talk). Self-nominated at 20:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC).
- I will be reviewing this. Eewilson (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi! Very interesting article. It occured a few years before I was born, but as a child, I am sure I heard about it. Thank you for writing it. There is no doubt this is notable!
- This is my first DYK review.
- Striking the first hook because although many sources say this, from WP it's POV. The has been called qualifier on ALT1 is better, so I elect for it.
- Spot checks for various elements:
- It had been raining hard in Indianapolis that night, and the Indianapolis Police Department (IPD) had activated additional police officers to patrol the city during Halloween. Seems like close paraphrasing. Also, the phrase raining hard could do without the hard qualifier. See if you can figure out how to make this sentence less story-like, if that makes sense.
- Over-citing? Example is in footnotes 3, 4, and 5: Oh so many citations for some of the statements. Are any of them repeating the fact from, say, the Associated Press? Are they all independent sources? There are a few other examples in the prose.
- More close paraphrasing: The grand jury released its findings on December 9, 1963,[68] in which they determined that the tanks should not only have not been used indoors,[37] but also should not have been stored in the arena and additionally lacked their recommended safety caps.[2] The investigation also revealed that, had a proper investigation by authorities been conducted prior to the show, the disaster may have been avoided.[37]
- I'm gonna stop there because I have a feeling there will be more of the same. I am really excited about this article. I see you have put it on the list as a GA candidate. Maybe a GA reviewer can help you in more detail. Because this is my first DYK review, I'm going to ask that another reviewer take a look as well in case I'm out of line. Good work, great topic, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we'll see more of this later!
DYK of 1963 explosion edit
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- n - Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - n
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Please see my bullet-points, above. Eewilson (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Eewilson, thanks for starting this DYK review. I agree that ALT1 would function as a better hook and have made some edits to the article to address some of the concerns you raised in this review. I addressed the issue of over-citation found in the footnotes and in a few other sections of the article and rephrased the sentences you highlighted to address the close paraphrasing. Hopefully any further issues of that sort can be cleared up in a future GA review. If there are any further concerns, please let me know. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- JJonahJackalope, you are welcome! Again, thank you for writing the article. Always nice to see Hoosier-related items, even the bad or sad ones. Eewilson (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have just seen an appeal for a second review on this one, in order to support the first review of a new reviewer. If it is OK with you, I shall prepare my review now. This may take a little while depending on how complex the task is. Storye book (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
| 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: 
An impressive piece of research; thank you for this fine article.
In response to the above comments:
- I should say that Earwig found no copyvio, and I saw no phrasing in the article which to me looked copied or inappropriate for WP style.
- I am one of those who do not agree with the concept of over-citing. The whole point of WP articles is that they are a first-stop piece of research, and that really it is the citations which a genuine researcher is looking for, in our work. And the more citations that we can give them, the better. Some sources will give different angles on the same thing, some will be unavailable at a later date, or will be unavailable to researchers who cannot cross paywalls or whose country has blocked certain websites. OK, a row of fifteen citations after one short sentence might be silly, but we don't have that here.
- I am happy with long and complex notes, too. Usually, and sadly in my experience, notes like that will be in response to other editors who have repeatedly complained that they don't understand something, until the poor creator of the article gets pressured to explain in full, in a note - and that explanatory note has kept the peace and preserved the article from undue interference and kept the text stable. Having a long footnote is a small sacrifice to keep the text stable, particularly if that text contains potentially controversial material - and this text could have been controversial when people were still blaming each other for the accident.
So, to summarise, I am happy with the article as it is. Good to go, and well done. Storye book (talk) 12:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Storye book thank you for the second review of this. With it being my first review of a DYK, I wasn't confident that I was looking for the right things. I'd done some GA, FA, and FL reviews, but not yet this! Expectations are different for each one. Thanks again. Great job, JJonahJackalope. I look forward to seeing it on the main page. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)