Talk:Benton fireworks disaster

Description

I don't know if "industrial disaster" is the best way to describe this incident. This was an illegal operation, not a licensed industry.Bmag32 (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I get this feeling that there might be a better title for this article.Bmag32 (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Stuff to add

This is a pretty good article, reads well, and is probably about c or b-class. It needs to things, though- exact location and more info about the after math.

• Location- I know the approximate location but have not get been able to find exactly where it is located.
• Aftermath/ What happened to the farm, the site today, the event in popular culture, etc.

Bmag32 (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of the word "successful" not appropriate

How can this operation be called successful? I removed the word successful from the opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.226.162.191 (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Benton fireworks disaster/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Drewmutt (talk · contribs) 00:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

At this moment I can't think of much to say, other than I think, after checking it over, it pretty much meets the GA criteria. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Taking a look at the moment... Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Positive

• Title seems to be appropriate
• Subject appears to qualify under WP:GNG, along with having sustained coverage
• The prose is from a neutral point of view
• It gives a good amount of background of the incident along with a fairly depicted aftermath
• The details and short quotes describing the explosion were very helpful in understanding the immensity of it

Needs improvement

• References
  • The references to Youtube are not appropriate as they are not from reputable outlets and their sources cannot be verified
  • References to inflation calculators are not inappropriate, but aren't terribly helpful
  • References to "gendisasters.com" are also not considered reliable sources, best to reference the secondary sources directly

• Content
  • There are a few minor grammatical errors. For example, at the bottom of the "Investigation" section..

...explosion to a direct hit from a powerful bomb."

that last quote shouldn't be there

• It would be nice to have a few more images in there, I know that's not always possible, but at least a map of where it happened would be nice

Overall, I think it's very close, the narrative is very descriptive and the it covers the subject in a good amount of detail. Just need the prior cleaned up. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Drewmutt: Before I get started, I'd like to point out a few things. First, I had 3 other images, but they were determined unnecessary per this discussion. Those were the best quality images I could find. Also, I have access to the news reports from '83 that are on YouTube (I purchased from the station's archives), but the one from 2008 was actually uploaded by the news station. Does that not qualify it as reliable? It is citing the station, not YouTube. I was also wondering if some of the interviews were a little too excessive. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've fixed some grammar errors, including the one listed, and reworded some sentences a little. I removed the inflation data and calculator. I replaced the references on YouTube with the actual media in the videos, provided to me by the news stations. I was able to find a copy of one of the Gendisasters artices on Newspapers.com, but for the other, I have replaced with different sources which are consistent with the former. Not done yet, but not too far. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment

The following text is insufficiently paraphrased from the source material, per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE:

Comparison of texts

Text as it appears in the Benton fireworks disaster Wikipedia article	Text as it appears in the Source Material
"A U.S. District Court Judge handed Bramblett two ten-year sentences for taking part in the illegal manufacture of the explosives and for fifteen counts of causing illegal fireworks to be transported across state lines and one count of illegally dealing in explosives."	"He sentenced Bramblett, 54, to 10 years for taking part in the illegal manufacture of explosives and concurrent 10-year terms for each of 15 counts of causing illegal fireworks to be transported across state lines and one count of illegally dealing in explosives."

References

Regards, Spintendo      07:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo, Drewmutt I have modified it now. Please tell me if it is still too closely paraphrased. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. Everything looks good.  Spintendo      20:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Drewmutt Spintendo that's okay. Does this mean we can now pass or fail the review now? Bneu2013 (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Drewmutt: Hello! What is the status of this review?--Dom497 (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

New Reviewer

As far as I can tell Drewmutt (talk · contribs) has abbandonned this. My appolagies to Bneu2013. If you are still around and able, I am willing to take over the review. AIRcorn (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Bneu2013 Aircorn, please also accept my apologies, life has gotten a bit tricky as of late and has been consuming much of my time. I'm not sure when I'll be able to devote more time on-wiki, so, if there's another reviewer available, I welcome them to take another look. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Aircorn if you'd like to, go ahead.Bneu2013 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't seem to be any outstanding issues from the above review. I will have a read through it tonight and post any other queries below. AIRcorn (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Generally very good and probably almost there. A few comments below.

• Some of the sentences get a bit long. For example
  • A massive explosion at an unlicensed fireworks factory producing illegal fireworks killed eleven, injured one, and revealed the existence of the factory for the first time to law enforcement and the public.
  • The event gained national attention, covered by multiple media outlets, and eventually led to the conviction of a number of people including the owner, a man who was considered to be the mastermind, and several others who conspired to manufacture, transport, or allow the fireworks manufactured at the operation to be transported.

You might want to consider breaking them up some

• I have issues with been reported to have been the largest illegal fireworks operation in history
  • Who reported this, feel it needs attribution.
  • In history is a grand claim and a little weaselly. How can this even be verified as being illegal fireworks there are likely some that have not been discovered.
  • This is not expanded on in the body. Generally the lead should be a summary of the body and not present new information. A statement like this needs to be expanded on.
  • Not sure the source is good enough for such a strong claim.

Comment - this is a bit of a strong claim, but if you look at other large illegal fireworks operations, this one passes them all in terms of income and number of fireworks manufactured. For clarification, this operation was illegal not just because the fireworks manufactured are outlawed, but also because this operation was secret and unlicensed. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, this sounds too much like original research. I am not comfortable with this unless it is attributed or has stronger sources. AIRcorn (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• He was considered by many to be the mastermind of the operation. Many is vague. Can we expand on who this many is.

 Fixed - sources attribute this claim to authorities. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Found M-80 (explosive). It should be linked somewhere. Couldn't find a M100 link, but it could be redlinked.

Comment - is already linked in background section. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• The initial blast was followed over the next several minutes by several smaller blasts which witnesses described as sounding like shotguns, believed to have been from individual firework cases which were not detonated in the initial blast Pretty repetitive sentence (initial blast and which are used twice). Feel ther should be a parenthetical comma, but might not be needed if sentence is rearranged.

Comment changed "initial blast" to "initially." Don't know if that satisfies what you are looking for. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Shouldn't use honorifics.

 Fixed - assume you are referring to Dr. Bass. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Would the list of dead be better presented as a table or list. It is a bit hard to make sense of.

Comment - I chose not to originally because there are really no other major aspects that could be included in a table (such as different causes of death). Bneu2013 (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking f something like Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Not really a table as such, but more its own section. Not a requirement, but something I think would make it a bit more readable. It uses a {{quotebox}}, but there are a few ways to do this. AIRcorn (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Federal firearms agents also found husks eight to ten inches in length and three to four inches in diameter] which prompted Polk County deputies to speculate that some of the explosives were being purchased by people with criminal intents, such as terrorists What are husks eight to ten inches in length and three to four inches in diameter and how does this lead to terrorism? Feel this needs expanding, or if it is just speculation it is probably not required.

 Fixed - "Husks" refers to fireworks casings. Authorities speculated that due to this large size (considerably larger than most fireworks), some customers might be using these for criminal activities.Bneu2013 (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Linda Sue Webb told authorities that she believed that they were "trying something new." This quote doesn't seem to add anything. What is meant by it?

 Fixed - removed. Probably unnecessary. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Paul Wilson, a factory worker, At the fireworks factory or another one?>

 Fixed - different one. Removed job description, changed to neighbor. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Feel the whole aftermath section could be tightened up some. Brambketts sentencing is confusing. It seems to be conflating two sentencings. I don't think it needs the WP:proseline style or the exact dates for every action, particularly as it happened so long ago. I also don't like the last sentence. It seem like it is referenced to the address. This is too close to original research and unless a reliable secondary source brings it up I feel it is undue and not notable.

Comment - Final source is a copy of the property deed at the Polk County Register of Deeds Office. One can verify this source by visiting there or contacting them. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is relevant unless a WP:secondary source mentions it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• If articles are linked in {{Fireworks accidents and incidents}} they don't need to be in the see also as well. Unless there is a closer connection.

 Fixed - Bneu2013 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Happy with the references. Only one I had some doubt about was Beyond The Body Farm,it seems a bit sensationalist. If it is not used for to controversial info I think it is alright.

Comment is used primarily for Dr. Bass' eyewitness account of the event. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• While I would be more comfortable with a more in depth Non Free rational for using the infobox image, it seems acceptable.

Comment - probably not any real good photos or video footage of this event, based on my research. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• No obvious copy violations [1]

Not all these a required for this to pass and I am happy to discuss anything you disagree with. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Bneu2013:AIRcorn (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• • @Aircorn: - If you'd like to take a look at the article now and see what you think of it. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• • • @Bneu2013: Not sure if you saw my replies above. I have two issues still.
      • One with it being reported as the largest illegal fireworks operation in history. To have this in the lead it needs to be expanded on in the articles body. I would be happy with a single sentence attributing who has said it was the largest in history. Better would be to expand on it like you have here as to why it is considered the largest. AIRcorn (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This claim feels hyperbolic to me. The two words largest and operation need to be defined. When we say largest, which metric are we using to gauge this by? Are we referring to the amount of fireworks being handled by an operation, or does largest refer to the number of people working within that particular blackmarket. The nature of any blackmarket is that it is difficult to gauge an organization's size. If largest means the quantity of fireworks which were destroyed, other explosions may have been larger than the ones listed under Category:Illegal fireworks operations. Usually disasters are ranked by a body count, in which case this would definitely not be the largest.  spintendo  17:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• • • • Not overly happy with using a primary source to tie the current business at the location to the disaster. I can probably let this one slide if you are adamant it adds value to the article. AIRcorn (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
        • @Aircorn:, Spintendo I have removed the sentence about the operation being the largest. I do agree that this is controversial, and that the book is not the best source for this. By largest, I believe it refers to the profits of the operation. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• • • • • • Thanks happy to pass this unless Spintendo has any outstanding issues. AIRcorn (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Nope, no more issues here, I think this article is ready to go!  spintendo  05:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks all. I am sorry this took so long to get sorted, but I am happy to pass it as a good article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• • Aircorn, thanks! Bneu2013 (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Summary: "Accused" and "Convicted"

The summary of this article (i.e. the table containing the basic facts) lists just one man accused and the same convicted, but the article shows that many people were charged and several of those were also convicted. Isn't the table misleading as it is? Shouldn't all the names appear? (Or at least name all those who were convicted, and perhaps just a number stating how many were charged but not convicted) TooManyFingers (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The number of people accused and convicted should probably be included, but not the names of everyone. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)