Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2013 Rosario gas explosion/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 03:55, 1 August 2014 [1].


2013 Rosario gas explosion[edit]

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an explosion that took place in Rosario, Argentina, a few days before a national election. It is a short article, but it contains all the info about the event that I could find. Cambalachero (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Although the building was not destroyed by the explosion, the risk of structural failure was high." - I'm not sure what building this line is referring to, and it's not clear based on context. The building that had the gas leak?
  • What is Curto's jurisdiction? Is he a local judge in Rosario?
  • What's the current status of the trial? It's not exactly clear what the timeline is on
  • "The demonstration in Rosario was not a cacerolazo, but..." - is this referring to the demonstration organized via social media?
  • What's the current status of the location? Has the reconstruction work been completed? If not, any reasons why its behind schedule? Parsecboy (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the sentence talks about the building of the explosion. The jurisdiction is a legal one, Curto recused himself because with the accumulated evidence the case was no longer among those he can work with. I have added a new sentence about recent news (the case itself, however, is still going on). The demonstration was initially intended to be a number of cacerolazos taking place in all the major cities of Argentina at the same time; as it turned out, the protest method was changed in Rosario but it was still a cacerolazo elsewhere. As for the status of the location, I have not found any report in newspapers (not even local ones) about completed buildings or delays. Cambalachero (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added "country-wide" to the first mention of the caceralazo for clarity - see if that's ok. Are there any Wiki editors who live in the area who might be able to take a picture of the site? It wouldn't allow you to add more text, but you could at least show the state of the site as of mid-2014. If not, no big deal, it's just a thought. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth
  • Be consistent in whether La Nación and other publications are treated as works or publishers
  • Check formatting of quote marks within titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cambalachero (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comments

  • In the lede, don't provide the names of the judges, save them for the main body. Especially since they investigated in succession, not all three at once.
  • Oroño and Salta Streets in central Rosario add "near the intersection of ..."
  • Translate this: CEMAR (Centro de Especialidades Médicas Ambulatorias de Rosario
  • , the risk of structural failure was high. suggest rewording this to: "there was a high risk of structural failure"
  • What is an "employee's cabin"?
  • Front for Victory and Progressive, Civic and Social Front candidates Add "The" at the beginning of the sentence.
  • had cheap insurances delete the 's' at the end of insurance.
  • Are there any updated info on the status of the reconstruction, etc.?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. An "employee's cabin" is a cabin used by an employee for his work. I said "insurances" in plural because multiple buildings have multiple insurances; just because most of them are cheap does not mean that they all have a single common insurance. As for the reconstruction, I have mentioned before that I found no info. Looking a bit further, I found this blog, which of course I won't use in the article, but gives more light on that lack of info: the area has been cleared of debris, and no reconstruction has been announced because there isn't any reconstruction yet. Until further notice, it is basically a vacant lot with some employees working inside; now that the explosion is not in the ongoing news headlines it would have to be a very slow news days for any actual newspaper to detail the advances in the reconstruction. Cambalachero (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes generally look good. One of the peculiarities of English is that insurances is never used, the plural becomes "insurance policies". I didn't really expect any new info on the reconstruction, but I was wondering about the judicial side of things. You need to explain "employee's cabin" in the text because this is a term not used in the US. Is it a literal cabin or some sort of temporary structure erected by the workers to shelter them from the weather?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Insurances does occur in the plural in the sense used by Cambalachero. See the OED entry. But if preferred, "insurance policies" would be fine instead, as you say. --Stfg (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not technically wrong, but I've never seen it used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Cabin" in this context is not about a small house or cottage, but a small room inside the building where the employee has the tools and machines he needs for his work. In Spanish it is a "cabina", and here it seems that the English language has a similar meaning (along with others), but I'm open to suggestions. The article has been twice in the guild of copy editors and in a GAN, and none voiced any concern about the word. Cambalachero (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was the second of those copy editors and probably should have picked up on this. That's a strange use of cabin. I thought it meant an outdoor workmans' cabin, such as are found on building sites, assigned to Garcia. I didn't check that particular source, and I don't know much Spanish, but the source (FN20) calls it la cabina de gas and doesn't appear to say that it belonged to Garcia. It might be better to replace "the employee's cabin" with "the store room", or even "the store room where tools were kept". --Stfg (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about "workroom"? In my experience apartment building often have a room dedicated to maintenance, although that's used by the building engineer/supervisor, not the gas company.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambalachero: does cabina mean a room where the work is done, or just where the tools/machinery are stored? (If the former, "workshop" would be better understood by a Brit, but I don't know about AmE.) --Stfg (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Workshop" Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support & Comments Very good article and detailed coverage of the event. I only have a couple of recommendations:

  • Could you please fix the opening sentence to match the standard in other WP articles? I am aware that other disaster articles use this style, including the FA Mt. Saint Helen, but it just seems very strange.
  • Please add a "See also" section to the article.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • What do you believe should be in this see also section? Other gas leak explosions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MarshalN20: please could you clarify what "standard in other WP articles" you're referring to? I think the sentence conforms rather well to MOS:BOLDTITLE; see for example the example of the 2011 Mississippi River floods there. Or did you mean something other than that? --Stfg (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stfg: Something along the lines of: "The 2013 Rosario gas explosion was..." (like in San Juanico disaster, or in most other articles in Wikipedia). The current format seems like a newspaper report.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I don't think that the name should be bolded because "2013 Rosario gas explosion" is not an actual name widely used by the press, but just a descriptive name created here in Wikipedia to talk about the event. As for a "See also", I don't think it would be appropiate to include explosions that took place 20 years before (and certainly not an explosion that was not an accident but a terrorist attack). And, fortunately, this explosion is a lone case, there have not been other similar accidents in Argentina recently (if there were such cases, I would list them). The articles of other related things, such as the elections, are already mentioned and linked within the article. Cambalachero (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to re-edit the response to Stfg. My compete suggestion was to write something like: "The Rosario gas explosion was a major man-made disaster that occurred on August 6, 2013, and affected a residential area of Rosario, the third-largest city in Argentina." It seems less like a news report, but I understand that the current sentence is in line with the MOS.
Another question I had was why the year (2013) was important to mention in the title? Have any other significant gas explosions taken place in Rosario?--MarshalN20 Talk 14:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:BOLDTITLE, links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead. The rationale for this is that linking part or all of the bolded text changes the visual effect of bolding; some readers will miss the visual cue which is the purpose of using bold face in the first place. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The year is provided for context. One of the very first things that people will want to know in an article about an event is when did it happen. Even worldwide known events (such as the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) will mention that detail in the lead as soon as possible. Cambalachero (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- There's been little activity here for the past week and we don't have anything approaching consensus to promote. I will however give Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy a bit longer to return and let me know if their points have been satisfactorily actioned before looking at closing this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought that I had already supported!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor (talk · contribs)

  • The mayor of Rosario - name?
  • The Center for Ambulatory Medical Specialties of Rosario (Spanish: Centro de Especialidades Médicas Ambulatorias de Rosario) controlled information about the dead and injured, - controlled? What does that mean?
  • Although the building was not destroyed by the explosion, there was a high risk of structural failure.[13] - This sentence could be reworded to avoid passive voice. Although the explosion did not destroy the building, a high risk of structural failure remained. - or something along those lines
  • It was reported at the trial that the building had experienced several gas leaks before the explosion.[14] - Could be easily reworded to active voice
  • Judge Juan Carlos Curto ordered the arrest of Carlos Osvaldo García, an employee of the department responsible for gas service to the area,[16] during the night,[17] and García's assistant Pablo Miño surrendered to police.[18] - The placement of "during the night" is awkward.
  • Prosecutor Graciela Argüelles said that, according to the investigation, Litoral Gas ignored calls for help from García, who was not properly trained to manage such a situation. The judge said - Double use of said. Maybe a different verb?

More to come once these are resolved. Prose is in good shape. ceranthor 00:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cambalachero (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More Comments
  • was caused by a large gas leak; a nearby building collapsed, and others were at high risk of structural failure. - To avoid passive voice, this can be reworded to something like "a nearby building collapsed, putting others at high risk...".
  • Mónica Fein, mayor of Rosario, asked residents to avoid the area due to the risk that more buildings might collapse, and to ease the work of disaster management personnel; the streets were covered by broken glass from damaged buildings.[9] - No need for the semicolon, as these sentences should be separated.
  • A number of people were missing; some were found dead among the debris, while others were rescued.[5] - So much passive voice. Surely some of this can be rewritten in the active voice.
  • and that the liability of Litoral Gas had to be investigated as well. - Awkward and wordy. Can you rewrite this as something like "authorities should investigate Litoral Gas's liability as well"?
  • Vice Governor Jorge Henn rejected is as immoral,[31] - Think this is supposed to be "it". Not sure, though.
  • and the proposal was initially rejected by most of the families.[3 - most of the families also initially rejected the proposal.

More later. I'm a bit concerned with how much passive voice is used in this article. ceranthor 17:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: I accept that we should avoid the passive where the active will serve, but I think you're overstating this and heading for difficulties. In your first bullet, you're changing the meaning: in the original, the nearby collapse and the others being in danger are distinct. Your revision implies that the collapse caused the danger to the others. In any case, others were at high risk of structural failure isn't passive. In the third bullet, the focus of attention is on the missing people, so I think that making them the subject of passive verbs is actually better than finding another subject for an active one. Some were found dead and some rescued, but we don't necessarily know who found/rescued them and we shouldn't invent a finder/rescuer. Likewise in your fourth bullet, you're inventing a subject (authorities) that we don't know is there. The topic is the potential liability of Litoral and the need to investigate it; who should investigate it is a different issue. Often, the purpose of the passive is to avoid inventing an artificial subject for an active verb, or even when the agent is known, to avoid putting emphasis on him/it. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Stfg, I've striked those comments, but the rest of my suggestions still stand. I have a few more comments to add here when I find the time, granted Cambalachero fixes the remaining ones. ceranthor 19:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ceranthor. Yes, I wasn't asking you to withdraw them all. (I agree with your last bullet, for example, as well as several others.) Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings, and I welcome the input. Thank you for correcting me when I was wrong. ceranthor 02:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry for the delay, there are things in real life those days that keep me a bit busy. --Cambalachero (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments
  • The following day yielded twelve victims, ten of whom were identitified.[4] - This sentence is very unclear. First of all, are the "victims" people killed or just people injured? That should be clarified. And it should be searches the following day or something like that, seeing as the current structure "the following day yielded" makes no sense.
  • The streets were covered by broken glass from damaged buildings.[9] - Covered with
  • He was captured during the night,[17] and his assistant Pablo Miño surrendered to police.[18] - Do you know when Miño surrendered? That seems like an important detail.
  • and Rosario-born Lionel Messi provided support.[51] - How did he provide support?
  • Fito Páez did not attend a general concert on August 19,[56] which generated controversy.[57] - An explanation would be helpful. As is, this doesn't seem to add much to the article. It seems irrelevant.

Once these are resolved, I think this article will be ready. ceranthor 15:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The 12 victims mentioned were dead, that's why it may be difficult to identify them if they do not have any ID with them. Miño surrendered the following day, and Messi has a charity named after himself. The controversy was just in social networks (nobody noteworthy said anything about Fito Páez's absence) and the newspaper mentioned it, but it's right, it may be unneeded, so I removed it. The reason of the controversy is because Páez receives huge ammounts of money to take part in concerts in support of the Kirchners, but may not take part in a charity concert at his home town because he would not be paid for it. But, as said, in the end nobody noteworthy really cared. --Cambalachero (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thank you to Cambalachero for your detailed responses and patience. I think this article is well-written, reliably-sourced, and worthy of being a featured article. ceranthor 01:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2013_Rosario_gas_explosion/archive1&oldid=1138453536"