Template:Did you know nominations/Pennsylvania Shell ethane cracker plant

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.

The result was: rejected by Allen3 ^talk 10:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

Pennsylvania Shell ethylene cracker plant

(

)

~~... that the Pennsylvania Shell ethane cracker plant is expected to create 6,000 construction jobs to build it, and 600 permanent jobs at the plant?~~

Created/expanded by Jgera5 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC).

This article was mis-named, cracking produces ethylene which is converted to polyethylene, not ethane. I have moved the page to correct the name and modified the article. I am striking the hook and adding a new one with the correct name. EdChem (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

ALT1: ~~... that the Pennsylvania Shell ethylene cracker plant is expected to create 6,000 construction jobs to build it, and 600 permanent jobs at the plant?~~

Full review needed; template has been updated to reflect new article name. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. The ALT1 hook facts have an inline citation to a newspaper where a subscription is required so I would accept it in good faith. My only concern is that the Shell reference (#1), mentions "up to 6,000 construction workers", which is NOT the same as the 6,000 mentioned in the hook and article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Three comments: First, the proposed hook about job creation sounds fairly promotional to me, given the well documented opposition to the project from environmentalists. In fact, the article makes no mention of the project's critics. Second, the paragraph that begins "Shell pledged ...." is not supported by citations. Third, I'd like propose a different hook:

ALT2: ... that a proposed cracker plant in Pennsylvania will not produce crackers?

I know that the sources do not explicitly state that the plant won't produce crackers in addition to ethylene, but I think it's a fair inference given the fact that sources describe the cracker plant as a a petrochemical plant. I am pinging Jgera5, EdChem, and Cwmhiraeth for input. Let me know what you think. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I fully approve ALT2 as being in the best tradition of hooky hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to reverse the tick, but I would point out that the link in ALT2 points to a redirect page. Also, as I was pinged and there has been more than a little discussion lately, I invite the thoughts of user:The Rambling Man and Fram to provide input here before it gets to the queues, if either has concerns. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I fixed the link in ALT2. When I first wrote ALT2, I copied the link from the original hook, but that was written before this page was moved. It should now direct readers to the article without passing through a redirect. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for the second paragraph in the "Shell involvement" section to be cited as it needs to be. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

My compliments to Notecardforfree for ALT2. E Eng 03:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I am giving Jgera5 another few days to respond to the issues raised here, with a third note to his or her talk page. I hope to see some action by then. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I've added a reference, see what you think. Not my article, but a quick search found something appropriate, IMO. :) EdChem (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't access the new source without paying to see it, so I think it's best if someone else finishes this review. There should be some consideration of neutrality—the point made by Notecardforfree that this article makes no mention of any opposition to the plant is still germane and has not yet been addressed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not content with the name. The proposed plant will crack ethane to produce ethylene, the latter being a smaller molecule. It will therefore be an ethane cracker and that's what most sources seem to call it. See What is a Cracker and Why Should I Care? for some general explanation of the process. Moreover, it seems that this has already been 5 years in the planning, construction won't start for 18 months, production won't start until 2020 and so there seems to be a significant element of WP:CRYSTAL in this. "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley." Andrew D. (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Andrew D., the article has already been moved once, from the name you want. May I suggest you open a discussion on the article talk page, rather than here, perhaps even open a move discussion? EdChem, since you moved it initially, I hope you'll participate. Whatever the article's name, and I'm not sure it's appropriate to hold up a DYK nomination for that reason, the WP:CRYSTAL argument needs to be addressed—how often are articles written about proposed but not yet started industrial projects?—though whether that means a crystal ball argument points toward an AfD nomination or something else entirely is something Andrew D. might want to suggest. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
- Speaking as a chemist, cracking refers primarily to the breaking of large molecules like decane (say) with 10 carbons into 2 carbon ethylene / propylene fragments, with an extra ethane or propane fragment being a necessary by-product. For decane, it is:

C₁₀H₂₂ → 4 C₂H₄ + C₂H₆

Cracking of ethane / propane to ethylene / propylene is possible, though setting up a plant for this specific purpose is atypical as a sufficient source to justify it is rare. In either case, the plant is a cracking plant to produce ethylene (primarily). If the Pennsylvania plant is using separating ethane out of a high-ethane-content LNG source and then cracking it to ethylene, as seems to be the case, then the ethane is an intermediate in the process and the purpose is to produce ethylene. Maybe the name could be changed to Pennsylvania Shell LNG refinery or Pennsylvania Shell cracking plant to avoid the issue? I express no view on the CRYSTAL issue and the lack of mention of opposition seems to be a flaw which should be addressed by the nominator. @Jgera5: I think you should comment and / or act, or someone is likely to just reject this. EdChem (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

EdChem, I just went to Jgera5's talk page to given one final prod, and saw that I'd given an earlier final prod—my third—back on July 23, noting that the nomination would likely close by the end of July. Further examination shows that Jgera5 has never replied here, and has not edited the article since nominating it over two months ago. I'm marking this for closure; if Jgera5 should show up here with plans to address the issues raised before the nomination is formally rejected, we can consider a short extension. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I certainly cannot disagree with this under the circumstances, it is very far past time that Jgera5 acted on this nomination, and it is not anyone else's responsibility to rescue it. EdChem (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)