Not everyone wants to read about an industrial accident in the literary style of a novel. Some of us want higher fact density and lower adjective density.
bless your heart! i'm sorry that you need somebody to google for you. should get that fixed.
No one asked for the wikipedia article. Adding hyperlinks to related content is what makes the web a _web_.
How is linking wikipedia insulting? Those two are perfectly complementary.
The article basically tells a story, while wikipedia (almost clinically) describes cause, effect and timeline.
Well, one starts with "On December 22, 2008, Ansol Clark woke to a ringing phone. It was sometime before 6 a.m., far earlier than he had intended to get up. He drove construction trucks for a living, but he’d been furloughed recently, leaving him little to do in the three days before Christmas except wrap gifts and watch movies with his grown son, Bergan." while the other starts with "The Kingston Fossil Plant Spill was an environmental and industrial disaster that occurred on December 22, 2008, when a dike ruptured at a coal ash pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)'s Kingston Fossil Plant in Roane County, Tennessee, releasing 1.1 billion US gallons (4.2 million cubic metres) of coal fly ash slurry."
My intent was to augment the article.
i think you are coming from a genuine place to be helpful. though it might be insulting to a writer for somebody to share their work then somebody offers a link like, "here read this instead"
What's insulting is getting a clickbait headline and then an ad thrown in my face when I start reading.
you can subscribe to the oxford american and that won't be a problem.