Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Hamlet chicken processing plant fire/archive1

Comments from SandyGeorgia

 * Converts needed, but that would result in convoluted parentheses, so I didn't do it myself: Fire Department (located 8.5 miles away), ostensibly because of their experience with complex conflagrations, and for extra oxygen from the Northside Fire Department (8 miles away). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure hyphen is needed here: Frustrated with the safety inspectors and a largely-unionized workforce in Moosic, ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * WP:MSH on not repeating words in lower level headings: in the section Fire, we have "Fire and escape attempts".  Can that be recast somehow, or just "Escape attempts"?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Ignition and escape attempts" since its about the start of the fire.
 * Since this footnote applies to the text in the parens, move the citation within the parentheses? (Hamlet had no generalized 9-1-1 emergency dial system)[56] Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * There are four instances of subsequently; three are redundant:
 * Hamlet Mayor Abbie Covington and Fire Chief Fuller subsequently asked for criminal charges to be filed against persons responsible.[96]
 * Lowder subsequently convened a grand jury to consider charges against the Roes, Hair, and maintenance supervisor Kinlee D. Mangus.
 * The General Assembly subsequently appropriated $78,000 to remove the plant ruins ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed.

Medical content

 * This statement would require WP:MEDRS sourcing, but I believe this can be addressed here by attributing the claim to the person/entity making it: PTSD rates were worse among African-American children of Imperial workers than white ones.[128] Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Tracked down the original article in Simon's citation. He specifies it was joint university/research institute team which I've added in-text. I can't access the medical article so I've cited the abstract for now, since that supports what Simon says. Realising this goes against WP:NOABSTRACT, I'll ask my university for access to the full article (it's only 8 pages, so it shouldn't be too bad).
 * I saw that; we may need to do more work on the wording here ... I'm concerned that the primary study cited abstract says "post traumatic symptoms" (as opposed to PTSD), and that it was based on self-reports (which is not a good study methodology), but we need to get access to the full text. If you are able to get full access, would you be able to email it to me, so I can help craft the wording?  If not, I will have to get to medical library an hour away ...  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should be able to email a PDF to you. One of the researchers on the team, Ruth DeRosa, also wrote a PhD thesis I have access to with data collected while working with this research team. She concludes: "The most robust variables contributing to lifetime diagnosis of PTSD after the fire were having lower socio-economic status, being female, feeling little social support, fearing death/injury and dissociating during the fire." Not sure if that's worthy a mention, but Simon does mention DeRosa by name in his book and mentions her dissertation in passing, and said dissertation does support the general claims about there being PTSD diagnoses. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I will email you through the interface, so that you will have my email; this is doable, but may take some careful wordsmithing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this sentence requires MEDRS' ideal level of sourcing. Yes, we need to be careful about the difference between the actual disorder and its symptoms, which can be present without the disorder being present, but this is a statement about specific individuals.  If we said that this was true a general rule (e.g., "When children are exposed to the same stressful event, Black children are always at higher risk of PTSD than white children"), then we'd be in MEDRS territory.  We're not saying that.  We're saying that, of the dozens of people affected by this specific, individual incident, this subgroup was affected worse than that subgroup, this one time.  This needs only a slightly better level of sourcing than you would use to support a statement like "He died in a car wreck". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The March 1997 paper is cited among others in:
 * Weissbecker, Inka, Sandra E. Sephton, Meagan B. Martin, and David M. Simpson (2008). “Psychological and Physiological Correlates of Stress in Children Exposed to Disaster: Current Research and Recommendations for Intervention.” Children, Youth and Environments 18(1): 30-70  https://www-jstor-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.18.1.0030
 * in these two sentences:
 * "Several studies report that PTSD symptoms appear more frequently among girls than boys (Khoury et al. 1997; John, Russell and Russell 2007; March et al. 1997; Rath et al. 2007; Shannon et al. 1994; Vernberg et al. 1996), although this has not consistently been the case (Earls et al. 1988; Handford et al. 1986; La Greca, Silverman and Wasserstein 1998)."
 * "Evidence also suggests that both adults and children from ethnic minority groups are more likely to experience increased stress due to relocation, slower recovery and more severe PTSD symptoms following disasters (Adams and Boscarino 2005; Anthony, Lonigan and Hecht 1999; Fothergill et al. 1999; La Greca, Silverman and Wasserstein 1998; Madrid et al. 2006; March et al. 1997).
 * This suggests that the March 1997 paper is accepted and correlates with similar findings in unrelated disasters. I'd probably keep that sentence about race, with the March 1997 source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insight. Perhaps specify that "PTSD *symptom* rates were worse among African-American children" or similar? -Indy beetle (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Indy beetle, I am too tuckered out from cleaning up citations on a FAR to properly review this today.  I'll look in tomorrow, and need to read the entire article, but I still want to see the original source to make sure we are not inadvertently "overdiagnosing"; that is, did they have PTSD, or only increased symptoms?  Want to read carefully and make sure we are phrasing it correctly. Also, if there is racial disparity in PTS symptoms overall, we have to be careful that our text is not over-attributing the symptoms to the fire.  I have to re-read, and see the journal report ...  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just got the PDF of the study. Highlights for everyone's benefit:
 * African-Americans [...] and females [...] were more likely to exhibit PTS than Caucasians or males, respectively, with the influence of race and gender dependent in part on exposure level.
 * our study, like others (Garrison et al., 1995; Shannon et al., 1994), found that females and African-Americans show an increased risk for PTS independent of exposure status.
 * I've made some changes accordingly, but input is appreciated. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I responded in an entire new section below, saying what you just said (which is what WAID said), but coming to different conclusions about what we can say in the article. See below. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Continued at. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC) That was a quick flyover; I'll read thoroughly when I have more time. Thanks for saving an old star, Indy beetle; I don't participate much at FAC any more, but happy to do so when a FAR helper shows up! More later, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

, it is possible that has access to that journal, and she is good at crafting this kind of text. I am concerned that we read the full original study to make sure we are getting the details right (eg, is it PTSD or PTS symptoms, if it was based largely on self reports with no controls, that is problematic so we'll have to be very careful with wording, and in an environment that involved deaths, negligence, criminal lawsuits and insurance settlements, we have to be even more careful about what we state as medical fact vs. claims, and whether any of the researchers had any COI ... without seeing the full study, it's hard to know how to craft this). WAID, the following text is what we are working on (Indy beetle is a most competent FA writer; if you aren't able to help, I will have to get hold of the study from a medical library). We may be able to solve some of this with more careful attribution, but I am concerned that we not overstate the primary study findings: Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fire survivors suffered long-term adverse health effects due to the incident, including respiratory ailments, muscular injuries, and cognitive impairments. Because of the town's small size, many Hamlet firefighters knew some or all of the victims, and suffered psychological problems. Between 50 to 60 people attended counseling sessions afterwards. Psychologists discovered high rates of anxiety and signs of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among survivors and victims' families. Researchers from RTI International, Duke University, and the University of North Carolina found that PTSD rates were worse among African-American children of Imperial workers than white ones. By 2000, some survivors had died as a result of complications from their injuries. Others became addicted to drugs (including painkillers) and alcohol, and some became involved in intense domestic disputes related to the money received from the awarded damages and lawsuit settlements.







March paper
Indy, I have the paper now. But I don't have Simon, so don't have the full picture, hence, some questions. The current text in the article is: I'm confused about what actual rate of PTSD they found, as the way they report 9.7 and 11.9 seems to differ in two different parts of the text, so I am misinterpreting something, but at any rate, they don't give us any way to compare that to matched controls, nor do they tell us how many of those were related to Imperial workers-- they only tell us there is a correlation between race/gender/exposure and symptoms. So, taking all of that (with the caveat that I don't have Simon, so you will surely adjust), my suggested wording would be more like: We do have to take care not to breach WP:MEDRS, in that we do have to take care that we don't inadvertently draw too broad of a conclusion. This complies with WP:MEDRS, as we are using a primary source correctly: "Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors." If we state, outright, that race is correlated with PTSD, then yes, we need a secondary MEDRS source. We're not saying that, although the current wording is veering too close to it for my comfort in a Featured article. More significantly, we aren't contradicting the secondary sources found by WAID (above).
 * March doesn't mention either RTI International or University of North Carolina. The researchers were from Duke and University of Oklahoma. So you most likely got the additional info from Simon, but I don't think that content is necessary or helpful anyway, and suggest we might exclude it.
 * Most of the children did not have PTSD, rather symptoms and behaviors associated with PTSD, so we have to take care on that.
 * The wording "among African-American children of Imperial workers" does not seem to be supported by the original study, which intentionally looked at as many local children as they could get to complete the self-reports. The 1,019 students who completed the self-report (administered not by professionals, rather their teachers) were fifth to eighth grade students (ages 10 to 16) from four area schools. On measure of exposure to the fire, more than half of them were not exposed, 22% had exposure via a friend or relative, and 11% were exposed both via friend/relative or visual ... so I need to see what Simon says, but we have to take care on the wording about "Imperial workers". See the section "Measures" at the bottom of page 1081 for how they measured "Exposure". The study never discusses which are "children of Imperial workers".
 * Again, need to see what Simon says, but I don't think this study actually addressed rate of PTSD among Imperial workers or their families. The significant findings of the study are more in line with with the citations of it mentioned by WhatamIdoing (above, at 20:46, 6 March 2022).  That is, the study showed some relationship between PTS symptoms and exposure, gender and race. And even those are subject to all of the usual disclaimers about the study methodology mentioned on its final page, 1087. The main methodological limitations are that the study relied on teacher administration and self-reports.  Also, of the sample population they aimed at, they got only 1,019 out of 1,800.  Another shortcoming is that they did not gather socioeconomic status data, which could have confounded their results.
 * The study does not say they found high rates of anxiety or symptoms; it doesn't address that at all, as there are no matched controls. They found some correlations, namely (see Discussion section, page 1085):
 * symptoms "rise in direct proportion to degree of exposure"
 * "comorbid symptoms are strongly correlated with Post Traumatic Symptoms" (they are referring to anxiety, depression, etc.)
 * those comorbid symptoms, except depression, are also related to level of exposure.
 * "gender and race show important albeit variable effects on risk for PTS and comorbid symptoms".

There are some other interesting tidbits and questions for you (you may want to use some of this, see page 1081): Hope this helps. I would trust the original study more than Simon's interpretation of it, unless you tell me Simon is a medical writer :) I will get through the rest of the article as soon as I get time, so as to be able to Support. Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure why March has 56 injured, we have 54.
 * I think this of interest: "Twice as many women as men were killed or injured, significantly increasing the impact on offspring."
 * Almost half of the bodies found in freezer rooms, where people tried to escape.


 * Also, one of my concerns with the wording is that PTSD is higher among African-Americans anyway, which makes it tricky to talk about the effects of the fire, in the absence of matched controls.
 * VA.gov
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Here is my revised text:


 * As for your point about the researchers, I've removed their institutional affiliations. Some of them were working on adult studies, not on the child studies. As for the 54 vs. 56 injury rate, I've seen both reported by news media from this time, and I imagine that's where March got it from. I'm using the Fire Administration report for the 54 stat, since I think that's more reliable than what a confused news media would report. The gender of the workers killed is noted in the article already, as is where the clusters of bodies were in the plant. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Language like A 1997 study based on questionnaires administered by teachers of 1,019 children from the area, then between the ages of ten and sixteen, is not exactly in line with Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. It might be better to just say "One study found that..." or "One survey found that...".  Anyone who actually needs to know methodological details should read the cited source.
 * Also, when we write "A 1997 study", we usually mean to imply "An outdated study", but this is the wrong idea here. The far more relevant time consideration is not when the study was published or how long ago it was from today, but how long after the fire the questionnaires were administered. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The 1997 is not intended to imply "outdated"; it places the date of the study in the context of when the fire happened (1991). Curiously, the study itself never seems to tell us when the questionnaires were administered, so publication date is all we have. And the need to explain that over 1,000 area students were in the study is because of misinterpretation about "survivors and victims' families" (apparently furthered by the source Simon), which was not the case (the study attempted to look at all students in the area of a certain cohort).  That said, to get the main points across with less verbiage, I would support changing  to  that is, dropping the methodological problems of self-reports, as that a) will be lost on the reader anyway, and b) is verging on too much description. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You could hide a link to Self-report study underneath the word "study". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent!  hope you saw the above suggested modifications? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll make the changes. For the record, the study was almost certainly conducted in about 1992. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Continuing
I have made minor copyedits as I read; please feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This sentence is a bit long: How about instead (also to avoid "being"):
 * Done.
 * A tractor-trailer delivery truck and a dumpster were moved to create openings ... put there intentionally? --> A tractor-trailer delivery truck and a dumpster were moved from the blocked openings ... ??
 * Specified that the truck was at the loading dock. Its presence wasn't by any means an inherent violation of any sort.
 * Casualties totaled 25 dead and 54 injured to varying degrees, with most of the deceased having been killed by smoke inhalation. more direct --> Casualties totaled 25 dead and 54 injured to varying degrees, with most of the deceased killed by smoke inhalation. ... or ...  Casualties totaled 25 dead and 54 injured to varying degrees; most of the deceased were killed by smoke inhalation.
 * Done.
 * Hyphenate record high? hit with a record high state-imposed fine
 * Done.
 * Could we have one more line in the lead dedicated to the victims? Casualties totaled 25 dead and 54 injured to varying degrees, with most of the deceased having been killed by smoke inhalation. I feel like they got glossed over in the summary ...
 * Added Of the dead, 18 were female and 7 were male. One was a vending deliveryman, the rest were Imperial workers.
 * Redundant, with additions expanding it from 21,300 square feet (2,000 m2) to 37,000 square feet (3,400 m2) in size.
 * Done.
 * With regards to these acquisitions, b By 1990, the facility in Colorado had lost its largest customer and was operating under capacity, the facility in Cumming, Georgia had been damaged by two fires, and the plant in Alabama was forced to close after its contracted food broker rejected the nuggets it produced due to their low quality.
 * Done.
 * Under pressure to recoup his losses and pay back his creditors, Roe devoted his attention to the Hamlet plant. He and Brad had production increased with a full second shift and the speeding-up of the line process. --> more direct ... He and Brad added a full second shift to increase production and speeded up the line process.
 * Done.
 * ultimately, of the plant's nine exterior doors, seven were locked or obstructed from the outside, including one which was marked "Fire Exit Do Not Block".
 * Done.
 * Most workers were not aware of OSHA's existence to whom they could have complained --> Most workers were not aware they could have complained to OSHA
 * Done.
 * Missing word ? The inspector uncovered six violations wrote in his report that Roe displayed "utter contempt for OSHA".
 * Fixed.
 * While the inspector noted the existence of the Hamlet plant on his report and suggested checking it, but nothing was done on this point. --> The inspector noted the existence of the Hamlet plant on his report and suggested checking it, but nothing was done.

If Simon gives you enough, you might put a double citation on the text, "A 1997 study based on questionnaires administered ... ", to both Simon and March. That would give you a secondary source backing the primary source, and help avoid you getting MEDRS-related queries down the road, as savvy editors may ask if you have complied. I believe you should have enough in Simon to do that, as that is where you originally found the March study, no? At any rate, although March is a primary source, it is used within guideline, and should you get queries, you can point to feedback here from WAID and me. More tomorrow, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Indy, do you need anything from this? Which cites Aulette, J., & Michalowski, R. J. (1993). The imperial chicken fire: States, corporations, and public health. In K. D. Tunnell (Ed.), Political crime in contemporary America: A critical approach (pp. 171–206). New York: Garland Publishing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added Simon, though frankly he seems to take a different read (the OG text) than the authors of the 1997 paper. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt that he's a medically trained writer, so that's not surprising. The more accurate summation is given by the secondary sources WAID mentioned, so we've got it covered here.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * another thing occurs to me. Rather than double citing it to Simon, you might use instead, or in addition, the secondary source given by WAID, as it says exactly what the primary study found. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * are you referring to the 2008 Youth and Environments article? It seems to use the 1997 study in generalities about PTSD, not specifically mentioning its relevance to the Hamlet fire. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but should you get any criticism down the road for using a medical primary source, you can point out that the conclusions of a secondary medical source are the same as what is written here. The medical text sourced to March is backed by a WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary review; Simon may be out of his territory, so we went back to that which is medically supported. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I did it this way; that just gives you insurance in the event that any nitpicker down the road questions a primary source. If you feel you don't need that, do not hesitate to revert.  The text is defensible as is; this is just insurance. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Guess it's assigned risk ;) -Indy beetle (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I read the original paper that this one cites; not too much to add to the article other than academic criticism of the state of North Carolina. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to know; I don't have access and couldn't read both of them. (I found them when I was trying to uncover why we name this article "Hamlet" rather than "Imperial" as some of the sources do ... I convinced myself for various reasons that Hamlet was better ... but I digress!) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Back for a fresh look
... following on the excellent work by Ovinus and Nikkimaria. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The Hamlet chicken processing plant fire was an industrial fire in Hamlet, North Carolina, at the Imperial Food Products chicken processing plant on September 3, 1991, resulting from a failure in a hydraulic line. Since "chicken processing" is already in the sentence, does it need to be repeated ? Or ... -->
 * The Hamlet chicken processing plant fire was an industrial fire in Hamlet, North Carolina, at the Imperial Food Products plant after a hydraulic line failed on September 3, 1991.


 * Can this be split up ? The conflagration killed 25 people and injured 54, with many unable to escape due to locked exits, making it the second deadliest industrial disaster in North Carolina's history. Despite three previous fires in 11 years of operation, the plant had never received a safety inspection. --> ?? -->
 * Despite three previous fires in 11 years of operation, the plant had never received a safety inspection. The conflagration killed 25 people and injured 54, with many unable to escape due to locked exits. It was the second deadliest industrial disaster in North Carolina's history. Perhaps just personal preference, but I'm seeking a shorter sentence there, and to introduce the critical issue sooner (failure of inspection).


 * On September 3 at around 8:15 am, the repair crew turned on the conveyor belt after altering the line; it separated from its connection and spewed hydraulic fluid around the room. The fluid vaporized and was ignited by the fryer's flame, starting the fire. --> ?? --> Is "starting the fire" redundant to "was ignited", considering we already know there was a fire?

Lead links ? Just some ideas, as I am noticing links are frequently added by copyeditors prior to TFA, suggesting we may need to look more closely during FAC ...
 * respiratory ailments
 * cognitive impairment
 * carbon monoxide (linked in body but not lead, on first occurence?)
 * poor safety record (Linked later in the article but not the lead?)
 * vending


 * and for North Carolina's lower labor costs Lower than Pennsylvania, or just low (overall, relative to entire country)?


 * One of these fires disabled the fire sprinkler system installed by Mello-Buttercup and was never repaired. Grammar check? Sounds like the fire was never repaired ?


 * Line workers were only given partial safety guidelines in their hiring orientation, which did not cover fire safety, and the only managerial staffer possessing a state-issued OSHA safety booklet found its content confusing. Split into two sentences?


 * The USDA approved the measure, despite the locked door's violating workplace safety standards. Awkward possessive ? Can this be ...
 * The USDA approved the measure although the locked door violated workplace safety standards.


 * I am not well versed in the differences in comma styles per ENGVAR variations, but it seems that comma usage is inconsistent ? Is there perhaps a mix of comma types?


 * Spell out and link on first occurrence ... Pound per square inch ... MPa ? Pascal (unit)


 * which would delay the plant's workflow and, they figured, likely anger Brad Roe. Is figured too colloquial? They worried, they thought, they feared ??


 * Cheshire decided to gauge his chances at a deal with the prosecutors by understanding how much they cared about the victims' lives. This is just awkward; I'm unsure what to suggest for a fix.


 * The conflagration was the second-worst industrial disaster in North Carolina history in death toll, behind the Coal Glen mine disaster. Can the Coal Glen date be added ... behind the 1925 Coal Glen mine disaster ?

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * My edits. I think I've gotten everything, but I held off on the abbreviations for the pressure measurements because it would make the parentheses messy. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All set; thanks again for bringing back this article and for all you do to help out at FAR.  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Ovinus
Been a while since I've been at FAC but I'm guessing the large-page problem remains. So I'll keep my babble on here.


 * $8,207.22 Why so specific?
 * It's what Simon put. Changed to "thousands".
 * after graduating from college Why is this relevant
 * He wasn't there from the beginning; revised.
 * Since the American chicken processing market was highly competitive and vulnerable to price fluctuations, Roe decided to increase his market share Why is Roe's business strategy relevant here?
 * Removed first part. A lot of Simon's book is a critique of the cheap food industry in general. Wonderful book, but as you imply, a Wikipedia article is not a book!
 * rejected the nuggets it produced due to their low quality "rejected the low-quality nuggets it produced"?
 * Done.
 * An automatic carbon dioxide fire extinguisher and hood was installed over the deep fryer vats after the 1983 incident Is "fire extinguisher and hood" a  unit or should  it be "were"
 * Fixed.
 * In 1991 the North Carolina General Assembly ... did not appropriate money for the purpose. A scary sentence; maybe split it up w/ semicolons?
 * Split.
 * in the summer of 1991 ... at all times Ditto, I can parse it but the lack of commas is unsettling
 * Split.
 * Most line workers did not know the exits were obstructed Redundant w/ previous couple sentences?
 * Removed.
 * OSHA attempted to inspect the plant Sounds a little funky; maybe "demanded" ?
 * Well, "demanded" isn't quite the right thing, since legally a search warrant is more akin to a government demand. An OSHA inspector showed up at the door and requested entry, Roe told him no, so the inspector got the warrant.
 * "asked" ?
 * Done.
 * The background section looks pretty good! I'll check the rest of the article tomorrow. Ovinus (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Fire

 * 29-foot-long (8.8 m), 300-gallon Stein fryer Is "large fryer" good enough? (i.e., are the dimensions and brand of relevance)
 * Stein is relevant because they were later sued, I suppose the length of the fryer isn't needed but several sources decided to discuss it for whatever reason.
 * citing the expense of such a purchase Maybe just "citing the high cost"
 * Done.
 * a line they already possessed Maybe just "a spare line" ?
 * Done.
 * I don't understand the chronology of the first paragraph. We start on Tuesday (workers coming in), then go to a review of work done... last weekend? Why not put "workers coming in" after the repair explanation
 * Revised.
 * which was variable by design to 15 °F (8.3 °C) either way Why is this relevant?
 * Chevron 32 hydraulic oil Why is the type of oil relevant? (it just feels like an embellishment)
 * This vapor then went directly into the flame of the cooker. The vapor had a relatively low flash point and quickly ignited. Is the low flash point relevant? (The two main reasons I'd see it be relevant are if 1. it had some engineering relevance or 2. something controversial needed to be debunked)
 * In response to the the above three comments, I do think these points had some engineering relevance. The temperature variance was mentioned in both Simon and the fire report. The hydraulic fluid was, if I remember correctly not designed to be flammable and wasn't labeled as a fire hazard outright like a can of gas would be, but under these optimal circumstances (exposed to potential heat of 390F, vaporized, then open flame) it burned just like any other oil. Yates writes, "Droplets were bouncing back onto the gas heating plumbs for the cooking vat, which turned them into vapor. The vapors then were going directly into the flame. The vapors had a much lower flashpoint than the liquid hydraulic fluid and therefore rapidly ignited. In sum, the pressurization of the hydraulic fluid combined with the heat was causing an atomizing of the fuel which in all probability caused an immediate fireball in and around the failed hydraulic line and the heating plumbs."
 * when he learned of the fire Needed? (why else would he call 911)
 * Revised.
 * located 8.5 miles, or 13.7 km Use convert?
 * Me and Sandy discussed this, the convert template would create messy parentheses.
 * Once there, Fuller told him that he needed the Dobbins Heights firefighters on standby in case he thought they were needed at the Imperial facility or if another fire or incident occurred in Hamlet which required their intervention Er, what? Basically Fuller just said they should do nothing?
 * Yep, basically.
 * A white Lance Vending delivery driver Is "Lance Vending" relevant?
 * Removed.

Continued

 * inflation should be used in the lead fine amount and in the body
 * Done, though I don't see the necessity of it. The fine was a record not in real money value, but in actually being the highest imposed fine.
 * attempted to portray his company as "rogue" what does "attempt" mean in this context?
 * Revised.
 * before installing new fire suppression systems to be clear, they eventually installed suppression systems?
 * It's unclear if one was ever added.
 * journalists from across North Carolina and the country Since North Carolina is a subset of the US, is it necessary here?
 * Removed.
 * a breakdown in regulatory enforcement Feels slightly strange to me for some reason; maybe just "poor regulatory enforcement"?
 * I think "breakdown" better conveys the institutional and enforcement mechanism failures which the source was pointing at, "poor" is nondescript by comparison.
 * but he ejected them and raised the finger Hm. Is "raised the finger" necessary? ("eject" is a pretty strong word already)
 * Removed.
 * He said he felt there were is "he felt" necessary to remain faithful to his statement?
 * According to Yates, yes "he indicated he felt".
 * I feel the first paragraph in the response criticism is a rather lengthy exposition of an argument between two men that, while certainly relevant, can be shortened. Is Fuller's initial statement important compared to his "unqualified" accusations later? Perhaps as a compromise that could be removed—but only if that still effectively captures his words
 * I've already condensed this a fair amount from all Simon puts (Cannon had a whole response to the "honored" statement). And while this was principally a back and forth between two fire chiefs, the failure to call upon Dobbins Heights upset enough people in the area for it to be dubbed "the firehouse incident".
 * keep the plant workers from stealing stealing... tools? Chicken? Was his statement really this asinine
 * Presumably chicken, but this is not specified. The actual phrase he used was "steal them blind". You'd be surprised about asinineness; there was a whole strain of commentary (particularly from a guy who sat on the NC OSHA advisory board) which basically held that workers being trapped by locked doors was just karma for them supposedly stealing.
 * had not objected to the fire safety issues maybe just "ignored"?
 * Done.
 * an attorney with a reputation for effectiveness in North Carolina Relevant? Also what is "effectiveness"
 * Cheshire had (and apparently still has) a good reputation down here for his trial skills. Aka Roe hired a good attorney. But removed.
 * After Lowder's racist comments, was there a public reaction or substantial news coverage?
 * This was not publicly known at the time. Simon learned this from Cheshire after the fact. Logically speaking, Cheshire wouldn't want to disclose that during the trial, because he wanted to be working with the least-motivated prosecutor possible.
 * but the insurers initially refused to pay out more Who? Liberty Mutual, or all three?
 * All three; clarified.
 * and $2,500 to over $1 million being awarded in 77 injury cases Quantity... per case?
 * Yes, revised.
 * Representative Charlie Rose threatened to introduce a bill which would require food inspectors to look for safety issues Why "threatened"? And why didn't he do it?
 * Threatened is the word the source uses, presumably he didn't follow through because the USDA reached the agreement with OSHA.
 * In 1994 the USDA and OSHA reached an agreement whereby USDA the former's safety inspectors would be trained to recognize and report workplace safety violations to the latter. Something grammatically odd here; I don't understand it
 * Replaced "the latter" with "OSHA".
 * posed a potential health hazard to the public To be clear, they are saying it poses a physical health risk? Or a mental one
 * Physical; clarified.
 * for former workers who had suffered from PTSD maybe "already suffering from PTSD" if that's what you menat
 * Revised along those lines.
 * which attempted to highlight Hamlet's historic connections to the railroad industry Seems like a random afterthought; what is the significance of Hamlet's rhetoric?
 * Removed, as it has more to with the Hamlet, North Carolina article. It was essentially an attempt to "rebrand" the town's image.
 * Some members of the African American community thought Is "Some African Americans thought" faithful enough? I don't think the "community" phrasing is meaningful here. (it does makes sense in earlier cases in the article.) "African American community members" is a fine compromise
 * Simon makes it clear that opinions relating to the fire & Jesse Jackson & racism weren't 100% unanimous. The local preacher who MC'd the ceremony with the mayor was black, and some people denounced him as a sellout.
 * Perhaps move the former plant site memorial picture up so that it is directly next to the relevant text? (or is my window opened really wide)
 * Done.
 * Categorize Jello Biafra and Mojo Nixon as __ artists
 * The sources don't give a clear genre for song, and as for the two of artists, The Qieutus says Nixon writes punk songs. But the album (worth a listen, real funny) is mostly old country-inspired. I'd rather let it speak for itself.
 * 20-minute documentary is the length of the documentary relevant (because it's short? just to clarify your intent)
 * Yes, just to clarify it wasn't a feature-length production.

That's about it from me; a great and thorough read. I'll probably do a quick skim after you respond to the above. Apologies if any of my hands-on edits were objectionable; I did more than I probably should have. Thanks for working on lesser-known but important and thought-provoking topics like this one! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Satisfied with all your responses. I'll go through the article one more time tomorrow. Ovinus (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Another pass

 * In response to the incident, the I think this is clear? Can probably remove the first phrase
 * Done.
 * and never paid any property tax in conjunction with the operation Can probably remove "in conjunction..."
 * despite being asked to do so by whom?
 * For the above two: revised to never paid any local property tax, despite being asked by officials to do so;
 * Roe decided to increase his market share by acquiring Why not just "Roe decided to acquire..." I don't think his strategy is important, plus it makes it less confusing with the subsequent "debt" part
 * Done.
 * to examine all commercial buildings within their respective jurisdictions to ensure compliance with the new state fire code Periodically?
 * Simon doesn't specify.
 * Hamlet which required their intervention Maybe just remove "which ... "?
 * Revised.
 * A dozen were I'm guessing this wording is to avoid starting a sentence with a digit. "Twelve were" is probably more specific (and perhaps more neutral)
 * Done.
 * criminal charges to be filed against those responsible Remove "against those responsible"
 * Done.
 * refused to pay out more, stating it was unfair because maybe just remove "stating it was unfair"
 * Done.
 * More to follow. In any case, pretty much all my comments are just silly nitpicks; I see no omissions, nor excessive detail

Source review/spot checks

 * Most sources are unfortunately offline. I checked a few online sources and they checked out. It seems Indy's done a lot of FACs before so I trust their judgment.

Sources all look high quality, except I don't know about Philadelphia Daily News and Indy Week. [108] could use a retrieval date. Does [154] have a link? I linked some publishers and stuff. Ovinus (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Philadelphia Daily News is a Pulitzer prize winning paper, the article that's cited is standard news reporting on how PhilaPosh, the Philadelphia-based union worker safety organization, was attacking Roe. Indy Week is a very liberal regional paper for the Raleigh-Durham area, but it's simply being used as a secondary source to establish the existence of the play about the Imperial workers along with the public radio posting. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Ovinus (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also the Star-News source was from an archive of the print version, so no, no link. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)