Talk:Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill/GA2

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

Reviewer: Femkemilene (talk · contribs) 15:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The lede says over 40 casualties, the infobox has 36, pointing to same source. Which is correct? Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - the lead includes the figure at the ten year anniversary of the event, and shouldn't have been changed. I have placed an embed note to ensure that does not happen again. I have replaced the infobox with approximately 40, as that appears to be the current figure. Please let me know if there is still any issue here. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "An October 2008 inspection report had identified a small leak in the faulty wall, but the report was not finalized" -> add at the time of the spill? Or was it never finilized? Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - determined that the report was not complete at the time of the spill. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see the 101 times as big is still in there, which is a crime against significant digits . Could you maybe copy unanswered points from the previous review into this one, and help my RSI. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment -, I'll look for a source that explicitly verifies this, but the Men's Journal source states that the volume was about 100 times greater than Exxon-Valdez; should I replace it with this instead? Bneu2013 (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes please! Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Bneu2013 (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Points from previous GA review

 * layout I find the structure of the article quite vague. the Deepwater horizon oil spill has a good example of a clear structure for an spill. I think that a section with consequences would be quite good (subsections health and environment?). Part of the information under the vague section title 'Details' might be transferred there. You might also want to make a section called: cause of spill.


 * Comment - fixed the layout; split into multiple sections and moved appropriate content where it belongs. "Event" section is for initial spill and early effects; "Response" section is for initial response. Listed the cause, determined by the report, under "cause" section.


 * The biggest point for improvement in the response section is that it's too detailed. You can consider using some subsections to make it easier to read, as well as summarizing it. The article reads a lot like "He said, she said".


 * Condensed section, cut quotes, and split into subsections for this purpose. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You have two single-sentence paragraphs in the article, which is discouraged in the MOS. You might want to expand the sentence about fish with the effect on bugs and swallows that the EPA mentions.


 * Got rid of the single sentence paragraphs by adding more details, including the effects on wildlife on the initial spill. I'm thinking that the article might be missing some information about the effects on wildlife of the initial spill, however. Not certain about that though. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ash fill, which was situated 60 feet (18 m) above the ash pond. I don't understand this sentence, and could not find it back in the given source. My (poor) understanding is that pond, landfill and ash fill all refer to the same thing? If not, could the distinction be made clearer?


 * I completely rewrote this sentence in an effort to clarify exactly where the spill took place, the process by which coal ash is transported into the ponds and then dried, and how this relates to where the spill took place.


 * TVA had reportedly known about the dangers of using wet storage ponds for coal ash since a 1969 spill in Virginia in which coal ash seeped into the Clinch River and killed countless fish.[11] I cannot access the source, but as this implies legal culpability and legal cases have been fought, this sentence might be made more strong (they knew about).


 * I have expanded this sentence to include more information about TVA's history with coal ash issues. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The response section goes in unnecessary detail and the structure of the different paragraphs is unclear. One of the paragraphs is too long. It is probably best to decrease the amount of quotes, as this is not a newspaper article.


 * Condensed section, split into two paragraphs, and cut quotes, replacing with summaries. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Avoid the quote tremendous for fish loss (can be written down more neutrally),


 * - replaced with neutral tone and cut quote completely. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * would have cost ratepayers tens of millions: I suspect his is framing? Could part of the costs have come from other parties? I'm thinking lower salaries, insurance, federal funds, savings, selling off property. There might be legal reasons why rate-payers would have to cough up the costs, so not sure.


 * Replaced with the more neutral tone that states that TVA had chosen to make small repairs in an effort to reduce costs. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Fly ash is described as a pollutant. I'm not sure whether that is entirely correct. This source: describes some of its contents as pollutants.


 * - no longer described as a pollutant; some of its contents are however. I'm wondering, however, if I should include the fact that some of the contents of fly ash are considered pollutants in the "Background" section, however. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Two final points

 * add short description/definition of 'in lieu of tax'. As it's a definition, you don't need an extra source for it.
 * - sorry, but I don't know what the issue is here. The source verifies the fact that TVA made these payments. I have slightly modified the sentence to clarify that the lost revenue was caused by the spill. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That works I think. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - Ok. Anything else? Bneu2013 (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the article looks excellent. I just passed it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 08:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Add (single line?) safety issues in the cleanup paragraph, to 'foreshadow' the mention in the legal action section. Now it comes out of the blue a bit. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - added sentence in top of first cleanup paragraph about how the workers were not provided with PPE. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)