Talk:Buncefield fire/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: --Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Some detailed comments below, but my main concern with this article is that it seems to leave its story unfinished, only briefly mentioning an anniversary service held in 2006. Surely the official investigation must have concluded by now? I'm putting this article on hold, to allow time for these issues to be addressed.
 * The legal action looks set to continue well into 2010 Bazj (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've completed all the points, except the lead one. I've also finished the story with the aftermath section.  Lourie Pieterse  15:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead

 * Really needs expanding by a paragraph to better summarise the article. For instance, I'd expect to see something about the cause of the explosion, something about its immediate effects, and something about the lessons learned from the incident.
 * ❌ I will do the lead after I've done all the other points.  Lourie Pieterse  15:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added the needed information to the lead.  Lourie Pieterse  07:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Explosion and fire

 * "Because of an inversion layer, the explosions were heard up to 125 miles (201 km) away; there were reports it was audible in Belgium, France, and the Netherlands." Which is it? One explosion or many explosions? Was it just the initial explosion that was heard in Belgium, etc?
 * ✅ The reference refers to the explosions, so it was more than one.  Lourie Pieterse  14:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Damage from the blasts, ranging from broken windows—including Holy Trinity, the local church and Leverstock Green School losing over 90 panes and blown-in or warped front doors to an entire wall being removed from a warehouse, occurred more than half a mile (800 m) away." I'm not quite following this, seems a bit muddled. Was it the school that lost 90 panes, or the school and church together? I think this needs to be rewritten.
 * ✅ Already rewritten by someone else.  Lourie Pieterse  14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Tackling the blaze

 * "This led to the M1 motorway being closed again". We haven't been told the M1 had been closed earlier, or anything about the public exclusion area that was widened.
 * ✅ Initially this was mentioned in the Transport disruption section. I've added the facts to the Tackling the blaze section as well.  Lourie Pieterse  14:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "The smoke plume had been considerably reduced and was more grey, indicating the amount of vapourised water now combining with the smoke". lost the chronology here. Considerably reduced by when? Midday on the 13th?
 * ✅ Added the days and dates to each paragraph to help understand the chronology.  Lourie Pieterse  14:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Bronze command—operations on the ground ... The entire gold command operation ...". Do you think it's necessary to talk about the gold, silver, bronze command structure? If you think it is, then it needs a brief explanation.
 * ❌ Are the explanation needed? There is a link to the command structure, and one could figure out what each one is. I don't know, I need your input on this one.  Lourie Pieterse  14:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I dont think the explanation is needed, because there is a piece of text that explains what it is. The user could also use the Wikilink if he needs more information.  Lourie Pieterse  11:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Evacuations and closures

 * The image at the head of this section clearly isn't of the refinery, as the caption claims.
 * ✅ Somebody else already corrected it.  Lourie Pieterse  15:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "The University of Hertfordshire campus, located further afield in Hatfield remained open." This seems a bit like that famous newspaper headline. "Small earthquake in Chile, not many dead." I'm sure there were a great many other places in Hertfordshire that didn't close.
 * ✅ Agreed, definitely not notable. Removed it from the article.  Lourie Pieterse  15:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Business disruption

 * "As of 13 December both buildings were completely unusable". This is slightly ambiguus as it's written. Is this as 13 December 2009, or 13 December 2005? If the latter, surely the "as of" bit is redundant?
 * ✅ Point already done by someone else.  Lourie Pieterse  15:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Local criticism

 * This section seems too short to stand alone. I'd suggest merging it with the previous Business disruption section.
 * ✅ Moved information to the Business disruption section.  Lourie Pieterse  15:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The terminal

 * "It was a major hub on the UK's oil pipeline network (UKOP) with pipelines to Humberside and Merseyside and is an important fuel source to the British aviation industry ...". Why does the tense change here?
 * ✅ Corrected tense issue.  Lourie Pieterse  15:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Initial speculation on causes

 * We need citations for the "deliberate attack" rumours, and for the "weekend effect".
 * ❌ Added tags, would add references later.  Lourie Pieterse  15:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I could only find a reference to support one of the facts. I removed the other from the article.  Lourie Pieterse  11:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "However, the cause of the blasts will likely not be known until a full investigation is completed". I'm really concerned about this. It's now 2009, almost four years later. Hasn't there yet been a full investigation?
 * ❌ Would do a little research regarding the problem.  Lourie Pieterse  15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ The particular sentence was removed by someone else. I've added additional information about the actual cause.  Lourie Pieterse  13:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

One year on

 * I don't think there's enough here to warrant a stand alone section. I'd be expecting to see a wrap up section, telling me what lessons have been learned and so on. I'm not even sure from what the article has told me whether the terminal was repaired or whether it was abandoned. What was the total cost of the damage caused?
 * ❌ I am thinking about adding an Aftermath section. Would do it after I found information regarding the full investigation.  Lourie Pieterse  15:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've renamed the section and added the needed sections.  Lourie Pieterse  15:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Note for the nominator and reviewer
I've got my teeth into a few other projects at the moment, including a Featured List Candidate and a few articles I believe can be taken up to GA. But let me know when you re-start work on this article, as I'll be happy to help you out. I live near to the incident and am familiar with local sources of information, so if there are any sourcing or content issues I should be able to help.


 * For what it's worth I think that the coverage of the incident itself is extremely close to GA standard without much effort needed, but I feel that everything from "Responsibility and Legal action" downwards needs a re-write, except for "The terminal" (although that should probably be near the top). WFCforLife (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How are we getting on with this?

 * Has work stalled, or are the issues raised above still being worked on? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominator seems to have said that he/she will be back next week. I'm around and prepared to get my skates if you would rather significant work started before then, but if there's no hurry I'd prefer to wait for LouriePieterse, and help out if there are any problems. WFCforLife (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to wait for LouriePieterse's return next week, no problem. Just thought I'd check. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. WFCforLife (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry everyone, but I've been very busy. I am back now! Would start today with the changes. :) Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  13:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Be nice to wrap this up soon
OK, I think there's still some work needed here:


 * The tone of Afermath is a little too editorial: "Incidents such as these always produce valuable lessons to be learnt." Should just relate the facts without any spin.
 * ✅ Removed the the spin.  Lourie Pieterse  08:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem though is with the innumerable prose problems in Aftermath.
 * "Other organisations accompanied the Health Protection Agency and the Major Incident Investigation Board (MIIB) to provided advice ...".
 * ✅ Improved.  Lourie Pieterse  08:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Computer modelling of plume movement and scattering are useful, but reliable and call forth measurements in various locations are also helpful."
 * ✅ Removed sentence.  Lourie Pieterse  08:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "The MIIB highlighted the importance of the design and operations at fuel storage sites in their firth report."
 * ✅ Removed sentence.  Lourie Pieterse  08:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "A large part of the depot have been destroyed and are in need of repair".
 * ✅ Removed sentence.  Lourie Pieterse  08:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically this whole section needs looking at again. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed all the double facts and improved the prose where needed.  Lourie Pieterse  08:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't rush to FAC with this, but I think it now meets the GA criteria, so I think we can at last close this now. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for you contributions! It really made a difference to the article. I really appreciate it.  Lourie Pieterse  19:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)