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.
AFD does not seem to go anywhere near delete, so I will ignore it. Length and newness sufficient without any indication of copyvio (Earwig shows long commission names and direct quotes). I can't access USA Today for some reason, but the Houston Chronicle states "almost" 3% instead of just 3%, so I will add that. Otherwise, as this seems to be your first DYK nomination, good to go. Juxlos (talk) 05:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains too-close paraphrasing of multiple sources. Compare for example "the fire spread swiftly throughout the holding pens, where thousands of cattle were crowded together" with "The fire spread quickly through the holding pens, where thousands of dairy cows crowded together", or "if the explosion was large enough to ignite even a portion of non-fire-resistant insulation, then it would quickly spread throughout the entire building, which covers almost 40 acres" with "if the explosion was big enough to catch any part of non-fire-resistant insulation on fire, then it would spread like wildfire across the entire building, which covers nearly 40 acres". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Only one of the examples given above was edited, and not sufficiently. This needs a more comprehensive reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, are you satisfied with the condition of the article as regarding close paraphrasing after the recent edits? If not, then I think it's probably time to close this. Thanks for checking. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any major issues on spotchecks of the present sources, but the Causes section is mostly unsourced - where is that information from? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the nominator put in a good-faith effort, but three months is more than enough time to address the issues. Trying to learn the informal guidelines that CLOP rests on is super frustrating, but unfortunately, DYK does have to keep chugging. Marking for closure. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]