Talk:Battery explosion triggers fatal office fire in Jakarta’s Kemayoran district

Original reporting notes

Emails, Phone call transcripts, other written evidence

nil

Interview details

nil

On-the-spot notes

nil

Details from broadcast report

nil

Information shared privately for off-wiki confirmation

Sent photo of fridge calendar to scoop. Gryllida 08:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I can verify that Scoop has received two images; one depicting a 2026 calendar and titled "2026 Waste Calendar" but no indication of the calendar publisher. At the top of the Calendar are the words "NEVER bin any battery." The second image depicts a flyer titled "Randwick Recycling Centre" with a list of accepted items to include "Batteries (all household or embedded batteries)."Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Last paragraph

TLDR: it changes the article’s focus, it drifts into commentary, it uses sources to make a connection the sources themselves do not make, and it is not tied to the unique, newsworthy event.

The last paragraph presents interesting WN:NPOV issues. For example, there are logical leaps that are not supported by sources, such as "...from fire rescue web sites [emphasis added], for example, in Australia." A more accurate and supported statement would be something like According to guidance from an Australian fire service, lithium-ion battery fires can develop rapidly and are difficult to extinguish. Stating it is from multiple fire rescue sites is not supported

The paragraph also seems to reframe the event within a broader, global, battery-safety trend that is not supported by the sources. The first two paragraphs report an office fire in Jakarta caused by a drone battery and the third and final paragraph jumps to reporting on battery fire information focused in Australia. It is not clear how booklets sent to residents in NSW, Australia are relevant to an office fire in Jakarta.

The last sentence of the article is also unsupported.

The article is being labeled OR presumably due to two images used to support the quote "Never bin any battery." Neither image can be used in the article and therefore casual readers can not verify any statements supported by the images.

The cause of the fire is not yet determined as a battery placed in the trash. Rather, the first floor of the office building housed a drone sales and manufacturing office and the battery was in a testing area. Therefore the recyclability of batteries or batteries being placed in the trash seems irrelevant to the story.

Reviewers should avoid removing sources from the Sources section. As written, to publish the article, a reviewer would need to remove the entire final paragraph, its sources, and the OR tag.

Contributors are encouraged to revise that section to make the article publishable.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Michael.C.Wright, thanks for the note.

• Obviously I did not get this message because it did not include my nick. Sorry. Please include my nick in future messages that require my response or any action. There is an option to subscribe to a page but it is not working reliably for me. Please use my nick.
• I think that the additions about electric fire safety are essential to the article. Your message is too long to read, I would encourage you to number the points, so that in my reply I can number my answers. Please do this in future, it will make it easier to reply.

1. The additional content does not unnecessarily change article focus, it provides a background. In my view it should remain as this background is relevant.

2. The article included an image of what a drone looks like. In my view this is essential information for people as many people will not know what a drone is. I would ask to keep it.

3. I am happy with the word 'multiple' removed, but the sentence about fire rescue site should remain.

4. I am not happy with claim that last paragraph is not supported by sources. There are 2 sources for it which one was linked and another emailed. Unfortunately, I don't possess information about booklets sent to Jakarta; that's how volunteering original reporting works as I am the closest reporter to that area. It is in general context about government regulation. In my view that content should remain even if in a shorter form.

5. I don't have a clue what the last sentence was. I cannot reply to that comment.

6. The recyclability of batteries is relevant as this is where the batteries should be taken to a contained site instead of a personal waste bin. I am not sure why you didn't understand this. It was clearly written in the text.

I have re-added some of that content in shorter form with some clarifications. Please review the edit and comment (with pinging my nick) if there is an action required.

Regards, -- Gryllida 02:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikinews:Watching pagesMichael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 02:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Does not work reliably, some times they come a few hours late. Gryllida 02:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Noted.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 02:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you please review pending edits @Michael.C.Wright? Gryllida 04:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Gryllida, RockerballAustralia, Michael.C.Wright, Bddpaux, JJLiu112 please check pending edit to this page thanks. Gryllida 04:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The added safety background, NSW booklet, and recycling guidance are sourced, but not relevant to the focal event in Indonesia. None of the fire-specific sources state the battery was binned, that recycling would have prevented the fire, or that Australian policy is in any way connected to this incident. Adding those links constitutes analysis, and the article does not establish any global trend.

To proceed, that material needs to be removed or replaced with event-specific, relevant content. I’m happy to re-review once that’s done.

Regarding the last sentence (your point number 5 above, I believe): Special:Diff/4955047 you put it there.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, thats the best i can do, as it is still Oceania. This is not a paid news outlet to necessarily report from there. In my view that addition is relevant to the story. Gryllida 19:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

added photo of a drone battery; please cherrypick which of added content you think is relevant, i am pretty sure photo of drone battery does not have to be from that specific shop thanks Gryllida 20:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright thanks Gryllida 20:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4958260 [Passed]

Revision 4958260 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:40, December 15, 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: A strong Wikinews article stays tightly centered on a single, well-sourced event and avoids drifting into broader commentary, thematic analysis, or material unrelated to what the event sources actually report. Everything in the article should directly support the 5Ws and help readers understand this event, on this date, in this place, as described by these sources. Staying disciplined in this way strengthens neutrality, improves clarity, speeds up review, and helps keep articles publishable. See the edit history for changes made as part of the review process. I realize reviewers generally avoid removing sources, but in this case it was clear which content those sources supported, and that material appeared to push the article away from the focal event. I raised the concern on the talk page and, after several days without response or revision, there was not enough time left to resolve the issue collaboratively. Removing the content and its associated sources seemed the most appropriate way to keep the article focused and publishable. 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 4958260 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:40, December 15, 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: A strong Wikinews article stays tightly centered on a single, well-sourced event and avoids drifting into broader commentary, thematic analysis, or material unrelated to what the event sources actually report. Everything in the article should directly support the 5Ws and help readers understand this event, on this date, in this place, as described by these sources. Staying disciplined in this way strengthens neutrality, improves clarity, speeds up review, and helps keep articles publishable. See the edit history for changes made as part of the review process. I realize reviewers generally avoid removing sources, but in this case it was clear which content those sources supported, and that material appeared to push the article away from the focal event. I raised the concern on the talk page and, after several days without response or revision, there was not enough time left to resolve the issue collaboratively. Removing the content and its associated sources seemed the most appropriate way to keep the article focused and publishable. 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.

-- Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 00:40, 15 December 2025 (UTC)