Talk:Refugio oil spill

Hatnote

Delirium and I are in disagreement on whether or not a Hatnote is needed/appropriate for this page. I'm curious what other users think? Initially the {{About-distinguish}} template was used. I believe that was the wrong Hatnote to use in retrospect. The two articles do not really need to be distinguished. But what about using {{See also}}? In my opinion this would be helpful, see WP:RELATED. --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Wavelength, Michaelh2001, Jw4nvc, and Delirium: you have all edited the page as well. Would love any thoughts you have. --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Three possible hatnotes...

{{about-distinguish}}

This page is about the 2015 pipeline oil spill in Santa Barbara. Not to be confused with 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill.

{{See also}}

See also: 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill

{{About}}

This article is about 2015 pipeline oil spill in Santa Barbara. For the spill that occurred in 1969, see 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill.

I like this one, fwiw. Maybe with even more content, along these lines:

This article is about the 2015 pipeline oil spill in Santa Barbara County. For the spill that occurred in 1969, see 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill.

This would help to distinguish the '69 spill offshore of downtown SB, with this 2015 spill at Refugio in SB County 15 miles or so West ("North" on Hwy.101) of the SB city limits. Note added "the" at the beginning.Jw4nvc (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support {{About}} template. These two spills will end up being confused with each other in time as they both occurred in the same area. The about template seems to give the clearest wording explaining the difference between the two. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Just now got the change email notification and I don't know if anything's been implemented yet (very busy) but if not here's another suggestion.

This article is about the 2015 79m3 pipeline oil spill in Santa Barbara County. For the 15,898m3 platform disaster that occurred in 1969, see 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill.

Here in SB the spill had relatively minor effects (most impacted was Refugio and to a lesser extent the area between Ellwood and Gaviota, several miles to the West). We may actually be seeing more impact now in the SB metro area beaches from a dramatic increase in the natural seep rate due to increased pressure because the offshore platforms have stopped pumping. At any rate, it's important to distinguish the two spills ('69 vs '15), the quantities on the water (79m3 [cubic meters] vs 15,898m3, and the two locations. People elsewhere can easily get the mistaken impression that we saw similar effects at the SB Harbor and adjacent beaches, while nothing could be further from the truth.

The "Map of spill and marine protected areas." currently on the wiki does not distinguish between the degree of effect (horrific images like the one of oil surf at Refugio vs. the lack of images showing people walking and swimming at SB beaches noticing no oil). Nor does the map indicate how much the affected area changed by the hour due to winds and tides. There are many indications that the oil has spread far out into the Channel and probably at least to the ecologically sensitive Channel Islands, and onto LA area beaches far to the southeast. Instead that early spill map gives the mistaken impression that only the area shown was affected, and that a black tide covered all of it.

Flying the area beaches repeatedly since the spill has made these distinctions obvious to me, and local media coverage has also emphasized these differences between spills, quantities and locations (unlike non-local coverage). Anything such as an About tag that helps the 2015 article make these differentiations will be beneficial to Wikipedia readers, and welcomed by locals.

Further, this Wikipedia article can help to educate readers about the serious effects even this relatively small spill has had on the local environment, economy and citizenry. Many locals have become much more involved in efforts to ensure that oil companies maintain and extend work on prevention and cleanup, and on supporting all work on moving to alternative energy.Jw4nvc (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A few photos on Commons

I took some photos of the cleanup effort on May 22, so I added a couple photos to the article and left a few more on Commons in the Refugio State Beach category. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a photo I took in 2007 that may be helpful to illustrate the "Economic impact" section: an oil barge and Platform Holly off the shore of Ellwood Mesa in Goleta. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Refugio oil spill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Btphelps (talk · contribs) 06:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Starting review. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 06:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Zackmann08, do you want to try to address the issues I've identified thus far below and resolve these during my review or would you prefer I fail it and you can resubmit it another time? — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 01:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of the issues are very clear and can be addressed. I don't have a lot of time in the near term but over the next few weeks I could address many of the issues. Fettlemap (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fettlemap and Btphelps: my apologies. I have been a little AWOL lately. Lots of stuff going on in my life... Anyway, Btphelps thank you so much for taking the time to review this! Your comments are super in depth and very much appreciated. Fettlemap I see you have already addressed a number of them. I will try to address the rest. Thank you both! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Zackmann08, I'm glad you appreciate my review. When I didn't get a response from you initially, I stopped where I was. I'll take another look in the next 48 hours to see if there's anything else needing attention. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 06:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Btphelps: was that previous comment ment for me? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Wooops. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 07:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

So I just made a few edits to try to reduce some wordiness and to clarify actions and results. I left some comments in my summary of these edits to try to explain why I made some of these changes and why I added some "who" and "clarify" templates. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 07:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued improvements! Can you resolve the topics tagged with {{clarify}} and {{who}}? Thanks. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Zackmann08, so I was a little bold and completely rewrote the lede. You have likely noticed that Google et. al. excerpt the first 30 words or so when presenting search results. So those first few precious words ought to pique the reader's interest and motivate them to click through to read the entire article. I also found that there are two estimates of the original spill amount, so I put them together along with the varying total amounts spilled and the clean up amounts. I removed some info on the Santa Barbara spill from the lede as it's not really pertinent to this spill except for the current spill's relative impact on the sensitive environment.

Old search engine excerpt: "The Refugio oil spill occurred on May 19, 2015, just north of Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara County, California.The oil spill originated from Line 901 owned by ..."

New search engine excerpt: "The Refugio oil spill on May 19, 2015 deposited 142,800 U.S. gallons (3,400 barrels) of crude oil onto one of the most biologically diverse coastlines of the west..."

— btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 03:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Zackmann08, the scope ought to address these issues as well IMO: (1) The article mentions tar ball cleanup. Apparently some tar balls and oil seepage are natural to the area: "Fingerprinting of oil and tarballs on the beaches has demonstrated that some matched the pipeline oil, while others likely originated from natural seeps in the area." See here and Natural Offshore Oil Seepage and Related Tarball Accumulation on the California Coastline and NOAA Fact Sheet: Natural Oil Seeps. (2) Update impact on wildlife. Details are here. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 04:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Done "downcoast" is not a word.  Done "This reminded some of another major oil spill in Santa Barbara. On January 28, 1969 an oil rig in the Santa Barbara Channel had a blow-out and spilled an estimated 3.4 to 4.2 million US gallons (81,000 to 100,000 bbl) of crude oil over a ten-day period." This long reference to the older spill is described in the lede and summarized in the body. It should be the other way around.  Done "The final tally found..." is passive voice. This is an important fact. Who made the tally?  Done "Before the spill, both these lines..." The antecedent reference to the two lines in a prior section are unclear.  Done "Hondo, Harmony and Heritage, three offshore platforms owned by Exxon Mobil, depend on the line to transport their oil after it is received by onshore tanks at its Santa Ynez Unit in Las Flores Canyon." This is one of several instances of very awkward sentence construction and makes for awkward reading, requiring the reader to rescan the sentence to try to make sense of the wording. In this construction, the oil is getting transported before it gets to the tanks that it's transported from. Try something like, "Exxon Mobil owns three offshore platforms, Hondo, Harmony and Heritage, that transport their oil to onshore tanks at its Santa Ynez Unit in Las Flores Canyong. They depend on Line 901 to transport their oil from Las Flores to a pump station in a coastal canyon near Gaviota."  Done"Although this thinning of the pipe..." What thinning of the pipe? The prior sentence mentions corrosion. When making an antecedent reference ("This"), the reference needs to be clearly stated.  Done "The slick has reached four marine protected areas that have received state protections..." Written in the present tense, when the incident is in the past. Present tense will become obsolete quickly as the date of the spill passes.  Done "By May 25, 2015, 6% of the oil released into the ocean was reported[by whom?] to have been recovered from the ocean and beaches." Another incident of passive tense that needs fixing.  Done "Researchers from the nearby University of California, Santa Barbara are monitoring the impacts ..." Since this article will rapidly become dated, present tense is not recommended. Better to say something like, "Researchers from the nearby University of California, Santa Barbara began monitoring the impacts ..."  Done Under "Economic" aftermath, the article states that two parks were closed, but does not mention any adverse economic impact. If there was an impact, name it. otherwise this information isn't pertinent.  Done I tried to improve the entire corrosion section, but the WP Visual Editor on a tablet is crap. That whole section is wordy and repetitive. For example, here's another awkward sentence where the action is described before the thing being acted on is mentioned: "Repairs to the area where the pipe broke had been made at least three times since July 2012 when the line had undergone a comprehensive internal inspection." Was the inspection or the repairs made in 2012? I'm confused.  Done "The impact on Santa Barbara County has been estimated at $74 million if the pipeline remains out of service for the next three years..." This is the first mention that the pipeline is shut down. That's a pretty significant fact that's omitted from the lede. "Santa Barbara County's emergency management team recommended that the Board of Supervisors keep a proclamation of local emergency intact till until May 2016." This seems like an unusual action and the fact appears to be tacked on. I can imagine that this kind of declaration might be controversial and perhaps notable. Was it? If so, does this seemingly small event merit more coverage?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	DoneThe lede doesn't include info on the economic impact, which appears to be large and is certainly primary in these kinds of events.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Done Some citations are missing access date.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Done Generally, the article needs to better summarize the most recent developments.  Done The pipeline was underground. This isn't mentioned anyplace and seems pertinent to help explain why the spill was hard to initially locate.  Done Impacts on fishing not mentioned; see Fishing impact.  Done The article states 7 miles of coast impacted. The clean up program covered 96 miles of coastline. Which is accurate? See Shoreline Cleanup Assessment Technique (SCAT) teams. See other issues pending above.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Discussions

• Just a drive-by comment: I think downcoast is a perfectly cromulent word. It is also a concise way of getting around what would otherwise be a big problem in geographical description: the coast runs east-west there (with the land to the north and the water to the south), but people who don't know this and just have the idea that it's somewhere on the west coast of North America will be very confused by descriptions in terms of east-west, and will more likely think (incorrectly) that east is inland and west is coastward. "Down the coast", as used earlier in the article, would also be acceptable, but I think not necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Considering WP is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, we shouldn't be making up words. "Down the coast" covers all options and is preferred. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think it's made up. Curiously, it's not in the Oxford English Dictionary, but "upcoast" (with the corresponding meaning) is. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Btphelps: you stated Under "Economic" aftermath, the article states that two parks were closed, but does not mention any adverse economic impact. If there was an impact, name it. otherwise this information isn't pertinent. I think you make a good point here that if there was an economical impact it should be discussed there. I disagree that it isn't pertinent without it. Noting that two parks were closed for over a month seems pretty notable to me. Can you discuss more and help me understand your line of thinking? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Btphelps:@Zackmann08:, is there a different term besides "Economic" that could be used that also includes the significant inconvenience of two very popular state parks being closed at the beginning of the season when all campsites are full? State parks will probably be reimbursed so it is not an economic issue. Fettlemap (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fettlemap: Are you suggesting that the oil company will reimburse the parks for their lost revenue? I think that would be a first. I think it's just lost revenue to the state, and increased costs because the parks still must be maintained while they are closed. Are there numbers available for this? If so they'd be hard to obtain unless there's a source that has already done that. You'd have to dig up what those parks typically take in during that period and how much they cost to operate. So as you suggest there might be a better way to describe this impact, e.g., "Two state parks were closed for X period of time, resulting in an unknown loss of revenue to the state.(source?)" — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 01:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Btphelps: No, I am not looking for that information. I am just trying to come up with a section heading better than "Economic." I just think the closure of the parks itself is notable, I just can't think of a appropriate section heading. This effected many people that plan months in advance to camp at these parks. People without a reservation actually wait at the entrance in case there is a cancellation for that day. These parks are extremely popular. Fettlemap (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well done! Thanks to Zackmann08 and Fettlemap for putting up with many petty requests and congrats on the huge improvements you've made in the past few days. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 01:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

btphelps, what is left for the nominator to do on this review? Based on the icons, I would guess that the review ended successfully, but the appropriate steps for finishing a review that passed (see WP:GANI#Passing) have not been done, so I'm assuming there's something more left to be completed. If not, then please officially conclude the review. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

btphelps I marked a few more done. Your assistance in editing the lede and such was much appreciated. I tried to address the emergency declaration comment but left if open for further work. Otherwise I think we are done (though I have a few ideas such as the political reaction when I get time). Fettlemap (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)