Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hamlet chicken processing plant fire/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 April 2022 [1].

Hamlet chicken processing plant fire edit

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This 1991 chicken processing plant fire was one of worst moments in North Carolina's modern history, killing 25 workers (making it the second deadliest industrial disaster in the state) and disrupting life in the small Southern town of Hamlet for a generation. The tragedy was largely the fault of the owner, who locked the fire exits and had his workers make repairs with improvised parts. He went to jail for a few years and the state government took a brief interest in fixing holes in safety enforcement. The article was originally an FA back in 2007, but was so deficient it was delisted four years later. I have rewritten the article top to bottom, largely thanks to a historian's scholarship which shed much needed-light on the events preceding and following the conflagration. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to update Wikipedia:Former featured articles#Former featured articles that have been re-promoted if this is re-promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a descriptive title it might work better not shoehorning it into the first sentence. I think "On September 3, 1991 an industrial fire caused by a failure in a hydraulic line destroyed the Imperial Food Products chicken processing plant in Hamlet, North Carolina." is better prose than what you have now (t · c) buidhe 05:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done.

Support edit

I followed this article on its last go-round as an FA, and am most pleased to see Indy beetle restore this horrific story to the prominence it deserves, using updated and high quality sources, and expanding the article almost three-fold. I picked my nits and reviewed the medical content and sourcing on talk. Nice job on a horrid topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more from me. The first paragraph of the lead mentions the 25 dead and 54 injured, but that same info is repeated in para 3 of the lead. In the third para, instead of:
    "Casualties totaled 25 dead and 54 injured to varying degrees; most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation. Of the dead, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman, the rest were Imperial workers."
    how about --->
    Most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation. Of those who died, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman, the rest were Imperial workers.
    or some such ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Sdkb edit

Hi Indy beetle! I regrettably don't have time to give this a review, but I just wanted to note one thing looking at the infobox. The fields |Accused=, |Convicted=, |Charges=, |Verdict=, |Convictions=, and |Sentence= seem like they ideally ought to be handled in a better way that creates less redundancy. E.g. Roe is currently listed twice, and the fact that there was one conviction is implied from the fact that we only have one name. I'm not sure whether this stems from larger problems with {{Infobox event}} (in which case it's beyond the scope of FAC) or the particular implementation of it here, but just something to consider. Best of luck with this nomination! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've revised this info, largely a remnant of the old version of the article. I could go without it in the infobox, since while Roe was found guilty of criminal conduct, it's obvious that this incident was much larger than a criminal case. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks better! Best wishes with this nomination! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial # edit

Placeholder for review. SN54129 19:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

92145: Cough! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend strepsils. SN54129 10:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know how James Neal Hair was related to Roe?
    • Roe's sons' father-in-law. And not Brad, a different son. This seemed like extraneous detail so I left it out. The important thing is the family connection.
  • Might just be my radingh, but "Roe recruited a workforce dominated by..." kind of sounds like he did this deliberately, although I assume it was the demographics?
    • Probably the demographics, though Simon words it in an accusatory way, saying the Roes relied on employment agencies to "funnel the kind of workers no one cared about" to the factory.
  • Lottery? Subject to random safety inspections?
    • "Lottery" is the word from the source. Basically the registered businesses would be randomly selected for inspections. This is in accordance to the definition of lottery used by Merriam-Webster, aka deciding something by random draw.
  • "The city manager got into a dispute..." -- Niland, avoiding repetition, and has just been introduced.
    • Done.
  • "taking on significant debt" - in order to do so or in the process of doing so?
    • In the process I think? He had to borrow money to buy these plants. I've clarified this; it was originally there but removed because FAC!
  • "The plant's top mechanic" -- was he the head mechanic or the best one?
    • Changed to "head".
  • The map's an excellent idea; any chance of colorizing it?
    • Are you referring to the plot showing the factory layout and casualties? It's taken directly from the US Fire Administration report, and the official copy of the document provided by FEMA is in black and white. I don't think color would provide that much of an enhanced understanding.
  • "on October 9 Roe sent another letter" to whom?
    • The workers; clarified.
  • "maintenance supervisor Kinlee D. Mangus" -- would this be the same ain't. man. mentioned in the "Response Criticism" section?
    • Yes, clarified.
  • "attorney Joseph B. Cheshire V. Cheshire" -- may I suggest merging the sentences as "attorney Joseph B. Cheshire V, who..." I don't think it lengths it exponentially, and that "Cheshire V. Cheshire" looks...odd. If length is a problem, though, "For his defense, Emmett Roe hired attorney Joseph B. Cheshire V, who sought a plea bargain for Roe with the prosecutors" would probably achieve the same.
    • Revised.
  • "Many former plant workers were dissatisfied with the sentence" -- I bet they were. I would have thought the sources might be more...robust than that.
    • Simon quotes five different people's reactions as examples; this seemed the best way to summarize that.
  • "Lawyers flocked..." were these individual suits or by way of a class action?
    • Nothing particular at that point, just some ambulance chasing. Some of them were targeting potential individual clients. One attorney offered to pay a local pastor to recommend his legal services to grieving families when they were at church.
  • " an action it had never done before" -- " an action it had never taken before"?
    • Yep, done.
  • I added the {{As of}} to keep it up to date, just an FYI.
  • Quoting Simon, lots of ellipses...what's that "of cheap" doing?
    • The full quote is as follows: "Above all, America became dominated by the idea—the system, really—of cheap. Cheap's central notion was that the combination of less pay, less regulation, and less attention to the economic and racial inequities of the past was the best way to solve the nation's most pressing problems. By 1991, this idea had seeped into every part of the country, every political discussion, every debate about civil rights, and every workplace and government agency until it reached the factory floor and the dinner table. Again and again, those with power valued cheap food, cheap government, and cheap lives over quality ingredients, investment in human capital, and strong oversight and regulation. But the policies of cheap came at a cost, as this story of the fire at Imperial Food Products in 1991 makes clear". As you can see, I did not think it wise to include this entire block.
A harrowing but important story in the struggle. Thanks for this, and apologies for the belated review! SN54129 10:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ovinus edit

Will review over the next few days. Ovinus (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Extended comments are on talk page. Ovinus (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Initial comments:[reply]

  • "with many unable to escape due to blocked exits" feels a bit shoehorned in there. Is the point that the plant was unsafe? I think the last sentence is good enough
    • I can reword it if you want, but if you look up "Hamlet chicken plant fire", particular retrospective news articles, the two most common things you'll find are "blocked exits" and "no safety inspection", so it seemed important to mention this off the bat.
  • Overall the lead is rather plump and overly detailed (e.g., "Of those who died, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman and the rest were Imperial workers." "in violation of safety rules" is pretty obvious and the decision's egregiousness speaks for itself.) Perhaps the less salient details could be filtered out so it's less of a play-by-play
    Some of that is probably there because I asked for more detail about the victims in the lead. Indy, whatever you think best here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Was sxpecting some disagreement here, so my rationale is that the lead should only contain one to two medium-length paragraphs detailing the incident itself; the (current) first and last paragraphs are much more important by giving context. C.f. recently promoted FA Space Shuttle Challenger disaster which only spends one paragraph on the actual disaster. I think a compromise is reasonable, esp in this case. But Sandy's makes a good point; mentioning that the victims were mostly African American and women is quite sensible. I'm more hesitant about information like "Fueled by a combination of the hydraulic fluid, chicken grease, the fryer vats' soybean oil, and natural gas"... I just don't see how that informs a reader interested in the ramifications of this tragedy, unless they're an engineer.... :P Ovinus (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not fussed either way you all decide to go ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, most of those killed were indeed women, but the racial breakdown on victims was split evenly. I've removed the "Fueled by..." bit as I see why its extraneous. I thought it was important to mention that these were explicitly safety violations; not every country has fire and worker safety codes that are supposed to be followed.
    Ah, thanks for the clarifications; I'm convinced. Ovinus (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "record-high state-imposed fine for safety violations" quantity?
    • Added.
  • "according to the city manager" Does this quote need to be attributed?
    • It is attributed to the city manager. Since this is the only part of the story that really involves this local official I didn't think it prudent to mention his name, unless you think clarity is necessary.
    • Considering the incriminating statement, I think the attribution is needed, but "city manager" suffices. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So far the article is looking very thorough and giving good context. As with the lead, there are spots in the body that I finda bit too much, e.g. "Food safety inspectors from the [USDA] visited the plant daily to examine the quality of the chicken, check for insects and varmints, and ensure that the facility's workers and processes were hygienic" could just be "Inspectors from the [USDA] visited the plant daily." Hopefully others can weigh in Ovinus (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you'll see below, the fact that USDA inspectors were aware of and did not stop the fire code issues created some problems. Since it was chalked up to a matter of training and jurisdiction, I though it important to detail what the USDA inspectors were actually doing there. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ovinus, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Soon; I've left a few things to discuss on the talk page. Ovinus (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now. Sorry for the extensive delay. Ovinus (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Was the labelled fire exit blocked or locked? This is inconsistently reported
    • Both are true, more infamously the locked doors (which is very specific, the fire report mentions some doors being "blocked" as well).
      • This needs to be clarified. The lead states that a labelled fire exit was locked; #Investigation states two were blocked. Are these the same doors or different? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Congressional investigation confirms that the marked door was padlocked; I've tweaked the body text to work with this.
  • FN132 is missing page number
    • Web source; url added.
  • FN152: author name doesn't match source, and what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    • Name corrected. The publisher of the Organica magazine is Aubrey Organics, and while the company still exists, it seems they abandoned their magazine. The company definitely seemed to be attempting to appeal to the young New Age health crowd, and thus you'll see their magazine advertised their organic products (shampoos and whatnot) while also publishing articles about environmental activism and whatnot to get the youngins all excited. So it makes sense why they'd have an article about two filmmakers who created a short documentary on a workers' disaster. Is it "a high-quality reliable source"? Probably not. But the claim it is supporting (that a "20-minute documentary titled Hamlet: Out of the Ashes" was made) is relatively minor, and its clear from the article that the author interviewed the filmmakers and community members. Either way, I'm not beholden to keeping this here, it was just another small fact.
      • My question would be, if this is the best source available to support that claim, does that claim warrant inclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well as a I said I wasn't married to it, I've chosen to remove it. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 130 and 155 should use the same formatting
    • Done.
  • Be consistent about when/whether you include publication locations
    • Should be fixed.
  • How does Dixon meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
    • Dixon got his PhD (so we can presume the dissertation was a success) and reviewed Simon's book for the Journal of Social History. He is currently the managing editor of Labor: Studies in Working-Class History, a journal with ties to both Georgetown University and Duke University Press [2][3].
      • This supports that he is now an expert in the field, but for SCHOLARSHIP looking for "cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • His adviser thesis adviser was Joseph A. McCartin, who I think would qualify as a "recognized specialists in the field".
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher for magazines
    • Not sure what you're getting at with this?
      • For example Fishwick includes publisher, but similar refs do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • All of the trade-based publications should now have publishers listed (since the Loss Prevention Bulletin and the NFPA Journal in particular seem inextricably linked to their publishing organizations as a matter of source credibility).
  • The LaBar source is not a news source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
  • Hi Nikkimaria, is this one good now? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry edit

Comments mostly on prose, but I do have some experience writing FAs on events.

  • The Hamlet chicken processing plant fire was an industrial fire It's a common pitfall of Wikipedia articles because of the way we structure our lead sentences, but can we avoid saying "the fire was a fire"?
    • I'm not sure how else we'd get a clean link to industrial fire, which seems relevant.
  • injured 54, with many unable to escape the ", with" construction, though tempting and common, is ungrammatical. "Many of whom" or similar would be preferable.
    • Revised.
  • due to locked exits seems a little passive to me, and begs the question "why were the exits locked?"
    • This is explained in the next paragraph.
  • The link on safety is a bit of an Easter egg; fire alarm is probably unnecessary as a commonly understood term; tractor-trailer delivery truck is unnecessary ("truck" would suffice; it's a common English term and the type of truck isn't relevant)
    • Shortened on the truck thing. I don't think the safety thing is that much of an issue, since it's the exact type of safety which is pertinent. I also don't see why linking "fire alarm" is really much of an issue, seeing as it is relevant to the subject and the exact text would be there regardless of the possibility of a wikilink.
  • in violation of safety rules without going to too much detail, whose rules? Legislation, regulation, company policy?
    • Now in violation of federal safety regulations
  • Some were able to escape through the plant's front door, while others could not leave due to locked or obstructed exits That "while" isn't doing anything. Suggest replacing it with a semicolon or full stop. And this is the first we've heard of obstructed exits, as opposed to locked ones?
    • See above. Obstructed does not preclude locked, a lock is a form of obstruction.
  • , while one maintenance worker kicked another unnecessary "while". Joining two semi-related facts like this into one sentence is tempting, but there's nothing inherently wrong with short sentences.
    • Two sentences now.
  • Most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation "dead" would suffice per WP:EUPHEMISM and the princniple of writing in plain English
    • Changed. Point taken on plain English, though I'd argue that being "deceased" is not a euphemism.
  • Most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation. Of those who died, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman and the rest were Imperial workers. I know I just said there's nothing inherently wrong with short sentences, but that's three closely related facts in separate consecutive sentences, making for a choppy read.
    • Semicolon insterted.
  • hit with seems a little informal
    • Revised.
  • Fire survivors just "survivors" would suffice in the context of an article about a fire; "adverse" can also be inferred from the context
    • Removed "fire".
  • he served only about four years "only" is editorialising; stick to the facts and let the reader form their own opinion
    • Removed “only”.
  • including whistleblower protections, while the state inspector corps ", while" again; this one is particularly problematic because it implies the events happened concurrently
    • Changed to "and".

That's just the lead for now but I would imagine similar improvements could be made in several places in the body. I'll be back when I have time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assisted by employment agencies run by the the way the sentence is structured suggests that the local governments/employment agencies deliberately recruited people matching that profile, whereas I'm guessing it's a (mostly) unintentional consequence of the nature of the work and the location.
    • Understood, removed.
  • In 1989, the inspectors noticed a large amount of flies amount → number
    • Done.
  • 90 reported for work, with the other 30 ", with" again
    • Done.
  • ostensibly because of their experience with complex conflagrations "ostensibly" is a loaded word that suggests that what follows in untrue
    • Simon makes it clear that this is Fuller's claim. "Ostensibly" is a little harsh, but it seemed convenient. I don't know how the Cordova Fire Department would have gotten such experience anyway unless one of the town mills had caught fire, but I've never seen any sources to suggest that.
  • He said he felt there were more than sufficient You don't need "he said" and "he felt"
    • Removed "he felt"
  • Between 50 to 60 you need an "and" if you're using "between".
    • Done.
  • municipal officials declined, with the city attorney citing "unresolved liability issues the "with" adds nothing here.
    • Removed "with".

That's it from me. I had some issues with the lead, and I might have a little bit more to say on those, but I'm very impressed with the body. I found it a moving and very readable account of a tragic and disturbing event. The description of the chain of events in particular is excellent—it tells the reader exactly what happened, in plain English, without imparting judgement or opinion. A model of what I look for in an FA about an event. With just a little bit of prose tinkering, I'm sure I'll be supporting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My comments have been addressed and I like the new opening sentence. It's much punchier and straight to the point. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "the Hamlet structure". "structure" is vague. I think "building" would be better.
    • Done.
  • "Roe recruited a workforce". You should give his first name as there are two Roes.
    • Actually changed to the Roes, since Simon attributes hiring to both of them.
  • "Ultimately, the Imperial facility never underwent a workplace safety inspection." I would delete "Ultimately" as superfluous.
    • Done.
  • "Thus, many municipalities, including Hamlet, lacked the funds to appoint such an official." I would delete "Thus". It does not logically follow.
    • Revised.
  • "Roe shuttered the facility in 1989." Merriam-Webster does not have this meaning of "shutter". "closed" would be better.
    • Done.
  • "North Carolina Commissioner of Labor John C. Brooks. MOS:SEAOFBLUE
    • Removed "North Carolina" from the link
  • "Committee chairman William D. Ford offered increased appropriations to OSHA in the wake of the disaster, but was reportedly turned away by the secretary of labor." The federal secretary? Who was he or she? Was there any evidence whether the report was true? Why would they refuse more money?
    • Federal secretary (there is no state secretary for labor in NC, it's the commissioner). It was Lynn Morley Martin at the time, but she is not mentioned by name in the report. The evidence is Ford's word, he told the author of the article that she turned him away. "Reportedly" might not have been the best way of styling this. Why would they refuse more money? Because it was a Republican administration in Washington and national Republicans post-Nixon have generally disliked OSHA, but this is not stated in the report either.
  • "reportedly" is not the best word as you say as the reader cannot assess how strong the claim is. How about "Committee chairman William D. Ford told journalist Allan Freedman that he had offered increased appropriations to OSHA in the wake of the disaster, but he was turned away by the secretary of labor." (linking secretary of labor) Dudley Miles (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've attributed the claim to Ford, but I didn't mention Freedman because its not really relevant who the reporters area and I didn't link the labor secreatry because she is mentioned explicitly in the previous paragraph.
  • "but they did not respond and were financially unable." This is ungrammatical.
    • Ah, good ol' previous copyedit. Fixed.
  • "based off the experiences of some of Imperial's female workers" based on.
    • Done.
  • This is a good article, but I have concerns about the unverified accusations based on newspaper reports, as above about rejection of extra money for OSHA. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks fine now - except that you are inconsistent whether secretary of labor is capitalised. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hamlet_chicken_processing_plant_fire/archive1&oldid=1082930618"