A fact from 2020 Colonial Pipeline oil spill appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 January 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
honestly. You could probably cut out the "where approximately 2,000,000 U.S. gallons (7,600,000 L) of gasoline leaked into a nature preserve in North Carolina," from the hook and still have a good hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article consists of mostly appropriate layout(削除) , however most paragraphs tend to be overly large and make it hard to break down the information (削除ここまで)
I have made some edits to split some of the larger paragraphs into more manageable sections.
Media broadly matches the content of the article when
Overall:
Pass/fail:
The article is generally well written, although there should be more paragraphs and less excessive detail
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
DimensionalFusion, terribly sorry for the late reply to this, I've been busy with some irl stuff, but I reviewed the article and divided some of the larger paragraphs into smaller ones to aid in comprehension. Additionally, I am more than willing to trim out some of the more extraneous information for simplicity (I got the feeling when writing the article that there was quite a bit of detail with everything covered in the newspapers and websites), but was wondering if you had any more specific or concrete comments as far as specific changes you would recommend. Thank you for initiating this review, and if you have any comments, questions, or concerns, please reach out. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
