Talk:Graniteville train disaster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Graniteville train disaster was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: December 24, 2006 |
 |
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) | ||||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject. |
Contents |
[edit] EPA image usage
Just to be sure of permission to reuse the images that I just added to this article, I emailed the EPA webmaster to ask. Below is my inquiry and the EPA's reply:
You can use, all that we ask is that you include "Courtesy of EPA". Thanks! Sherry L. Maddox, Web Services Team Leader OPM Web Master US EPA, Region 4 www.epa.gov/region4/ ---- Original message ---- Hello. I am an editor on the English language edition of Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org); my main focus is on railroad history, especially in the United States. My username on Wikipedia is Slambo, and you can view my own information page at < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slambo>. An anonymous editor recently added a link in the Wikipedia article on the Graniteville accident ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graniteville_train_disaster) to a page at the EPA website that has photos of the accident's aftermath ( http://www.epa.gov/region4/graniteville/images.htm). It is my understanding that graphics created by agents of US Federal government are automatically released into the public domain; looking further around the EPA website's FAQ, I found a note that some images on the website might not be so covered but under private copyright. I would like to use one or more of the photos from the EPA page linked above in the Wikipedia article, but I need to be certain about the copyright status first. Are these images released in the public domain? Thank you in advance for your time.
slambo 19:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Avondale Mills business data recovery
While it may be notable to state that the mill was able to restore its business data quickly, the following text sounds more like an advertisement:
- Avondale Mills Data Recovered by ActionFront.
- The train wreck and chlorine spill could have threatened firms’ business continuity. Some negative economic effects of the wreck were ameliorated thanks to the quick thinking of Avondale employees and a very specialized service provider. See references section for more information.
- ...
- * ActionFront Data Recovery Labs ([[February 24]] [[2005]]), ''[http://www.actionfront.com/Avondale_Mills_Data_Recovered_by_ActionFront.pdf Avondale Mills Data Recovered]''. Retrieved [[September 26]] [[2005]].
While data recovery is important, this text needs better wording and possibly a reduction to a single sentence that can be merged into the text elsewhere in the article. slambo 17:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Inline Citations
This article may have enough references to qualify as "well-referenced", but the GA criteria has recently been changed, and somebody may have to convert them to inline for this article to still count as a GA. Just a heads up. Homestarmy 14:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Preferably sooner than later.... Homestarmy 03:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done Slambo (Speak) 10:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh.....well....I guess it's fine then, thanks :) Homestarmy 13:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done Slambo (Speak) 10:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:GA/R Article's Good Article status under review for delisting
See WP:GA/R. --Ling.Nut 01:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Delisted
This article has been delisted due to GA criterion 1. b. which clearly states an article should;
"contain a succinct lead section summarising the topic". LuciferMorgan 21:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How many fatalities?
The articles says ten people died from the accident, but later says nine. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.198.24 (talk • contribs) 00:08, March 26, 2007
[edit] "The dead" vs. "List of fatalities"
I suggest changing the name of one section from "List of fatalities," which is rather bureaucratic, to "The dead," which is shorter and more vivid. Someone's changed it back, saying the original was "more neutral point of view." I disagree. Thoughts? PRRfan (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edited
The April death was attributed to the incident by media sources only. From the NTSB debrief of the incident:
"The death of another Graniteville resident on April 19, 2005, was initially reported by media sources to have occurred as a result of exposure to the chlorine gas released in the accident. The final autopsy report for this individual listed the death as natural due to pulmonary thromboemboli. Regardless of the circumstances, this death would not have met the criteria for death reporting under 49 Code of Federal Regulations 830.2, because it did not occur within 30 days of the accident."
This should be fixed in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.69.215 (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edited
Maybe something should be added about how sheriff Mike Hunt (that's honestly his real name) told the families to stay home until 3 o'clock in the afternoon Iamanadam (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you've got a reliable source which you can cite with the information, please do. Slambo (Speak) 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
