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

Hamlet chicken processing plant fire

Hamlet chicken processing plant fire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Hamlet chicken processing plant fire/archive1

• Featured article review/Hamlet chicken processing plant fire/archive1

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

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)

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)

• Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Support

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)

• 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)

  Done. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Sdkb

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)

• • 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)

    Looks better! Best wishes with this nomination! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Serial #

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

92145: Cough! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Ovinus

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:

• "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)

  (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)

  I'm not fussed either way you all decide to go ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  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)

• "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)
    • Identified by name now. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • Gotcha. Ovinus (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review

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).
• 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.
• 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 [1][2].
    • 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)
      • 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)
      • 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)
  • Fixed.