Talk:Rana Plaza collapse/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 02:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the the time it has taken for me to start the review of the article.

To start things off, I'm just looking at the article from the "Causes" section onwards, because there appear to be some issues in this particular section.

• "Building built first without authorization on a pond" – this statement appears ambiguous. There are no explicit statements in either [1] or [2] that say that there didn't exist authorisation with regards to the pond. The impression that I get is that there planning permission, but perhaps "precautions" (whatever that means) were not carried out.
• "One good example to illustrate this context is the evacuation of the building after the cracks." – what's the context in question? It needs to be more specific.
• "nirbahi officer visited the site" → "nirbahi officer who visited the site".
• Reference 44 is missing details.
• "the building collapse" → "the building collapsed".
• "was arrested at Benapole, on the Indo-Bangladeshi border, in Jessore District by security forces" → "was arrested at Benapole, Jessore District, on the Indo-Bangladeshi border, by security forces".
• "On 1 May on International Workers' Day, protesting workers paraded through central Dhaka by the thousands" → "On 1 May, during International Workers' Day, thousands of protesting workers paraded through central Dhaka".
• "as the death toll from the collapse of the nine-story building passed 700".
• Nick Clegg talked about the issue of consumers' purchasing power, and by leaving out this context, "think again" has no meaning. Overall I think his quote does not reveal a lot, and that a better one could be found.

•  Not done

• Given the gravity of this incident, I think the "Consumers" section, in particular the claim that, "Dozens of consumers...spoke out" appear underwhelming and insignificant.

•  Not done

• Also, why is there a journal reference (no. 38) for the widely-covered news that a woman named Reshma was found?

•  Not done

--Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)  Done

• In addition, what are some of the findings of the NYU publication?
• The biggest issue that I have is with regards to the four reasons for the collapse as outlined in the Causes section. I'm skeptical about the conversion from commercial use to industrial use as being reason for the collapse. Surely there are other buildings that have undergone such a conversion – to what extent was this a reason in this particular case, and can you find the quote in one of three sources? In any case the three references that are used were published within a week of the collapse, meaning the causes could not have been correctly been pinpointed during this time. Was there even an investigation into the building collapse itself?
• Before we could go on any further, what makes Libcom.org a reliable source? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 11:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hello, I am not very knowledgeable on the topic, I did some general small fixes that were relatively easy. Before that I have very little experience on the topic. I am unable to fix the complex issues. Thank you for contacting me, sorry about the late reply. Happy editing. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response and your contributions to the article. I am sorry to say that the article, in my opinion, does not currently reach GA standards as yet. Perhaps you or somebody else would like to make some further changes to it -- I am happy to have a look at it again in the future. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: