Talk:Public officials, experts discuss lessons learned during West, Texas explosion

• I attended this webinar (which originated in Austin, Texas.....but I was physically at a regional office elsewhere when I watched it) from 11:07am - 12:32pm local time today. --Bddpaux (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The title of the webinar was: "Best Practices in Local Public Health: The West Explosion"--Bddpaux (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

There were 3 people who spoke, all were involved in responding to the event. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Patterson spoke first, and offered a few comments about the people in surrounding neighborhood(s)......how they literally trickled toward the gathering site.....he went into quite a bit of detail about Ems units showing up and how they triag'd etc. etc. It was funny when he said the part of about this being the first time he didn't have to request other agencies, they just showed up! (You kinda had to be there, but it was funny!) --Bddpaux (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Dana Lafayette was a psychotherapist who spoke next. She recounted a number of items, mostly trying to help with the psychological fallout from the event.

General notes from her talk: explained that mental health professionals offered assistance following the blast, avoided being too intrusive with citizens.

quote:"We would walk through there and hand them water, along with the information cards and say, 'If you need us, we're here.'" Good quote: "It was interesting to see the amount of resiliency within the community." Also: "We just tried not to be too intrusive."

• Kelly Craine, Public Information Officer for Waco-McLennan County Public Health District was last. [probably said the least]. Her agency's primary focus: "create some sort of 'safe haven' for victims of the blast." They utilized a local church as a gathering place for people who were displaced [homes in surrounding area were heavily damaged]. I thought it was pretty interesting that she said, "This after action report is so big, we're still working on ours." ...whenever the topic of AAR's came up. --Bddpaux (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 2153631 [Not ready]

Revision 2153631 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 09:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I have looked at the journalist notes,the sourced link and the external link. I have not been able to find the quote from Dana Lafayette. Most of the article appears unverifiable. More details need to be provided on the talk page regarding the verifiability of the article. There are no inline hidden comments that say where things are verifiable at. The notes do not say which of the Webinars was attended. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 2153631 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 09:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I have looked at the journalist notes,the sourced link and the external link. I have not been able to find the quote from Dana Lafayette. Most of the article appears unverifiable. More details need to be provided on the talk page regarding the verifiability of the article. There are no inline hidden comments that say where things are verifiable at. The notes do not say which of the Webinars was attended. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Yeah, I took a lot of notes but when it came time to transcribe them, I got a bit lazy. I'm going to tighten those up considerably and re-submit. --Bddpaux (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

OK....I think that should do it. --Bddpaux (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 2157963 [Passed]

Revision 2157963 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Struggled with verification; at first I though most of the second paragraph had no corroborating documentation, but scrounging in a couple of pdfs provided on the web site eventually yielded results, after which what remained wasn't too much of a stretch. A technique that sometimes works, if you're willing to do it, is to scan in your handwritten notes and simply provide the scans (if one doesn't want to share them on Commons, one can send them to scoop). If the notes are even remotely legible they can be of help, even if their legibility isn't perfect. Of course, I realize some reporters don't wish to share their handwriting, and also that scanning in notes isn't altogether labor-free; but it's an option, fwiw. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 2157963 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Struggled with verification; at first I though most of the second paragraph had no corroborating documentation, but scrounging in a couple of pdfs provided on the web site eventually yielded results, after which what remained wasn't too much of a stretch. A technique that sometimes works, if you're willing to do it, is to scan in your handwritten notes and simply provide the scans (if one doesn't want to share them on Commons, one can send them to scoop). If the notes are even remotely legible they can be of help, even if their legibility isn't perfect. Of course, I realize some reporters don't wish to share their handwriting, and also that scanning in notes isn't altogether labor-free; but it's an option, fwiw. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.