Talk:Brazzaville picks up the pieces after ammo depot explosion

This article was considered for Featured article status by the Wikinews community.
See the archived discussion.

Original and notes to the reviewer

I interviewed Dr. Kelechi Kalu, director, Center for African Studies, The Ohio State University on March 29, 2012. I used a quote within the article.

Paragraph 1: The ICRC reported 303 deaths in the news 3/22/12 release. The IFRC's news release March 7 gives the length of the relief effort and also later on the most affected parts of the city.

• Note: The name of the depot in French is Regiment Blindé Munitions.

Paragraph 2: Handicap International had figures on the distance of the spread

Paragraph 2: Information on the Talangai Hospital can be found in the ICRC news release.

Paragraph 3: US CIA, Section:"People and Society," The World Factbook. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, (page last updated on March 19, 2012).

Paragraph 3: US State Dept, Section:"People," Background Note: Republic of the Congo. Washington, DC: US State Department, (January 3, 2012).

Paragraph 3: The ICRC news release listed on the front page.

Second from last paragraph: Notes for information from Christian Sedar Ndinga, president of the Congolese Red Cross, comes from a IFRC video news release downloaded from the African tab.

Last paragraph: Richard Moyes, director of policy and research at Landmine Action, Explosive Violence: The Problem of Explosive Weapons. London: Landmine Action, 2009. (See pages 22-25)

Review of revision 1450024 [Not ready]

Revision 1450024 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: I have concerns; see below. Verifiability: Not ready: There's a glitch; see below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Re verifiability: The George Fominyen source link accesses a March 4 article by someone else, instead of the listed article. Re newsworthiness: My concerns center on whether this is actually OR; I'm not convinced it is, and if not, then the freshness of this would depend on whether it contains new information come to light more recently than is apparent from the dates on the cited sources. I want to better understand the origins of the piece. Feedback on the following items (and anything else that seems apropos) would be appreciated. Use of "primary" sources, like the CIA's World Fact Book, isn't automatically OR. It's not at all obvious to me how (or why) one would define what is a "primary" source, as opposed perhaps to a "news" source; the core issues we care about are accessibility and trust-worthiness. A news release by the ICRC seems at least as primary as the CIA's World Factbook, or conversely the CIA's book is no more primary than the ICRC's news release. The sources listed on the talk page seem to belong in the "Sources" section of the article; when a page doesn't have a date as of which it was updated, we use (in my experience) the date of access, with "(date of access)" after it. There is a point at which "digging" for stuff becomes OR, as with a piece Brian McNeil did in late 2010 based on mining documents leaked via Wikileaks, but the key there seems to be that the information was sufficiently buried in the mass of leaked documents that it had, in a meaningful sense, not already "come to light" until dug up by the reporter. The content gathered here doesn't seem to me to pass that test, unless I'm misunderstanding what was dug up, which is of course entirely possible. This article was held up in development, waiting for... what? It seems understanding this could be helpful in understanding the overall nature and status of the article. 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 1450024 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: I have concerns; see below. Verifiability: Not ready: There's a glitch; see below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Re verifiability: The George Fominyen source link accesses a March 4 article by someone else, instead of the listed article. Re newsworthiness: My concerns center on whether this is actually OR; I'm not convinced it is, and if not, then the freshness of this would depend on whether it contains new information come to light more recently than is apparent from the dates on the cited sources. I want to better understand the origins of the piece. Feedback on the following items (and anything else that seems apropos) would be appreciated. Use of "primary" sources, like the CIA's World Fact Book, isn't automatically OR. It's not at all obvious to me how (or why) one would define what is a "primary" source, as opposed perhaps to a "news" source; the core issues we care about are accessibility and trust-worthiness. A news release by the ICRC seems at least as primary as the CIA's World Factbook, or conversely the CIA's book is no more primary than the ICRC's news release. The sources listed on the talk page seem to belong in the "Sources" section of the article; when a page doesn't have a date as of which it was updated, we use (in my experience) the date of access, with "(date of access)" after it. There is a point at which "digging" for stuff becomes OR, as with a piece Brian McNeil did in late 2010 based on mining documents leaked via Wikileaks, but the key there seems to be that the information was sufficiently buried in the mass of leaked documents that it had, in a meaningful sense, not already "come to light" until dug up by the reporter. The content gathered here doesn't seem to me to pass that test, unless I'm misunderstanding what was dug up, which is of course entirely possible. This article was held up in development, waiting for... what? It seems understanding this could be helpful in understanding the overall nature and status of the article. 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.

My focus here is twofold: 1) While the explosion at the depot occurred March 4, 2012, the relief effort is ongoing. 2) The high death rates from explosions are unusual and makes this case noteworthy but also creates the large-scale relief effort.

As far as documents go, I would never claim the CIA World Factbook or the State Dept Background Notes are primary. However, the Landmine Action study is a primary source. The organization brought together its own research in collaboration with Medact in monograph form. This source is used back the claim that the explosion at Brazzaville was 100 times worse than the average incident.

I also wanted to leave a trail above to make it easier on the editor to review. Crtew (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1454998 [Not ready]

Revision 1454998 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: I'm not convinced. The last source is dated March 23, almost ten days ago. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Is there anywhere out there any update on the relief effort? 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 1454998 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: I'm not convinced. The last source is dated March 23, almost ten days ago. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Is there anywhere out there any update on the relief effort? 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.

Done

In this version, I emphasized Dr. Kalu spoke to Wikinews.Crtew (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Review request

The first three sources update the article in terms of casualties, missing children, health and munitions disposal. This is current up to today April 2. The second part of the article puts the blast almost one month ago into perspective. The last part talks about the relief operation. In two days, it will have been one month since the blast and the relief operations will go on for 3 more.Crtew (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1458343 [Passed]

Revision 1458343 of this article has been reviewed by Mono (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Well written article, albeit a bit stale. 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 1458343 of this article has been reviewed by Mono (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Well written article, albeit a bit stale. 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.

Cleanup

{{editprotected}}

And the World Health Organization has confirmed around 10 cases of cholera, which was supported by Alexis Elira Dokekias, who is the nation's director general of health.

Can that paragraph be changed to read, "The World Health Organization has confirmed approximately 10 cases of cholera. This report was confirmed by Alexis Elira Dokekias, the nation's Director General of Health." ?? Thanks!! Bddpaux (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Going to defer a decision on that. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking a look. --Pi zero (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Did this. --Pi zero (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)