Template:Did you know nominations/Transammonia

The following discussion 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 Allen3 ^talk 11:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Transammonia[edit]

(

)

... that Transammonia is the world's largest private company in fertilizer trading and merchandising?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1970 Colombia earthquake

Created by Northamerica1000 (talk). Self nominated at 09:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC).

Everything accounted for.--十八 10:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that the "History" section be expanded slightly along with the addition of at least one more section (such as "Operations") to make it a more complete article. Alex Shih ^Talk 19:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

While that would be nice, and in time will likely occur, the above expansion criteria doesn't appear to be part of the DYK Rules, Eligibility criteria or Supplementary guidelines. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the nominator, and stand by my original assessment. I read the article, checked it against the rules and guidelines, and it passed on all counts. New articles shouldn't be expected to be "complete" because they are, by definition, new.--十八 00:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment. A lot of work has been put into this article, but the reason why I made the suggestion (not a rejection) is because although the article meets the length requirement (approx. 1862 characters), it reads like a stub for me on a initial glance. So it is the largest private company in fertilizer trading, but what exactly do they do? I have no idea. Just a little information may help immensely and bring this article to start class quality. Note that articles exceeding minimum characters of prose may still be rejected at the discretion of the reviewer. Therefore, I will re-direct this entry to a second opinion. Alex Shih ^Talk 17:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The introduction and infobox of the article comprehensively states the company's activities. Again, your above rationale isn't valid to put the article on-hold for DYK, because the article continues to pass all of the rules/criteria and supplemental rules. While I appreciate your opinion, it's rather obfuscating to deny this entry based upon your personal criteria, rather than the rules that were determined by consensus. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a comment on whether this subject meets DYK criteria or not, as I do not have an opinion on it. However, I wanted to clear up that it is certainly one of the criteria that an article not have any glaring omissions. Thus an article can be 1500+ characters and still not meet the requirements. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, but there are no glaring omissions existent in this start-class article. It's start-class, not FA, and it provides a functional, neutrally-worded overview of the company, it's activities and accolades. I remain concerned that this DYK submission is being placed on-hold based upon one editor stating that another editor should expand the article per the commentators' personal preferences, rather than the overall DYK criterion, which this article continues to pass in entirety. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in Alex's own words "could be expanded slightly" it doesn't sound like there is a glaring omission here. Unless Alex has something specific he feels is essential but lacking, I suggest Juhachi's review is valid. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Just on general principles, I'd be hesitant to suggest that any review that merely says "Everything accounted for" or "good to go" or similar wording is valid. Proper reviews should cover what was checked, from size and timeliness through neutrality and hook length to sourcing for hook and article and close paraphrasing. A quick check on my part shows that the hook facts are sourced to a 2003 article. A lot can happen in nearly ten years; is it still the largest in the fertilizer field today? The hook needs something much more recent in the way of support, or needs to be revised. I've also removed a dubiously sourced Forbes top 100 ranking for 2010 from the lead (the source may have been published in 2010, but it was a book with unknown delays from writing to editing and publication, and even so refers to 40 years later from the 1965 founding, which would be 2005); a 2011 Forbes rank, though sourced to the company rather than Forbes, is more likely to be accurate, and gives an actual number (34). Finally, mining Plunkett's for a bit more info on what Transammonia does (or did as of 2008, including what it started out doing) and paraphrasing it for the article, should take less than half an hour and significantly improve what is a rather threadbare article. To me, not mentioning its original businesses is a glaring omission. (There may be other sources, but it's certainly available from Plunkett's.) At present, without the 240-character quote from the company that concludes the controversy section, the article is under 1500 prose characters, so it's definitely borderline. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added another source in the article to verify the hook. It's a primary source, but serves to further verify the claim. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Now will you be addressing the "glaring omission" that I identified above? Although Alex Shih wasn't specific, I was, and I feel strongly that the article needs the additional information...and it is available. Please let me know whether you intend to expand the article to better explain what Transammonia does, and what it started out doing when the company was formed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: The article has been significantly expanded today to address concerns above, and also simply to expand it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Article is now 2901 prose characters, and the omissions noted above have been filled in, and more besides. The hook fact appears in the article and is inline sourced per DYK requirements. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)