Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Radioactive contamination from the Rocky Flats Plant/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted (t · c) buidhe 23:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Comments by CaptainEek
[edit]An important article to get right, this page has unfortunately suffered in recent years. Its grown amorphous, its lead has ballooned, and it appears a number of inaccuracies have been introduced. In just the first paragraph there was an obvious typo, and even worse the lead photo caption had been clearly inaccurate for several years. I would do the full review myself, but I admit I am a bit short on time, November is always the busiest month...
- Numerous uncited sentences
- Lead too long, and just chock full of citations. Leads should summarize, not introduce tons of new info
- Broad in its coverage is questionable, the history section is surprisingly short. Much more could be written about the two major fires, or the extensive cleanup operations. Just reading a single newspaper article [1], it is apparent how much is missing and could be included. That article is 20 years old too, so I wonder if there is more recent coverage. There appears to be a book out as well, which would be great to incorporate.
- It looks like very few of the edits in recent years have been scrutinized at all, and the prose is not well integrated. I would like to see claims examined for factual accuracy, as well as for POV. Tensions around Rocky Flats have run hot through the years and I have no doubt some folks would like to push a certain narrative.
I imagine this article can be saved, but it will need some work. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
- I nuked the lead back to the version when it ran for FAC. It is a bit of a blunt approach, but I not only adjudged it to be too long - it also was decidedly non-neutral (i.e saying
Despite radioactive contamination remaining underground at the Rocky Flats AEC/DOE site, the U.S. government—with an inherent conflict of interest—eventually judged the plant's surrounding areas and their exposure risks suitable for any use
). I would imagine there has been some POV editing into the lead. Now it could do with an update, bu this belongs in the body and needs to be more carefully worded. I might look into this later if I get time, but as it stands this does not reach a GA standard. Aircorn (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)