Talk:2013 Rosario gas explosion/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 07:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I will review this article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review
&mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Rosario gas explosion - location map.png = image on Wikimedia Commons. Licensing checks out okay.
 * File:070813-rosario2.jpg = picture from Commons, appropriate licensing on image page, with OTRS confirmation.

Stability review
&mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Inspection of article edit history going back over two months reveals no ongoing issues.
 * 2) Talk page history similarly reveals absence of conflicts.

Good article nomination on hold
NOTE: Please comment below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 22, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: The writing quality throughout is alright, good enough for GA, though I would strongly recommend both a peer review process afterwards.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout, however, the entire article appears to rely upon multiple articles from only one source, La Nación. This creates multiple problems, as noted, below.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Covers major aspects of event, however, only using one source, La Nación. Surely other secondary sources have had things to say about this event.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Concerns about NPOV. Reliance upon La Nación as sole source (albeit using multiple articles from that source) of information. Therefore, this article is just regurgitation of the POV of La Nación. Please make an effort to incorporate multiple other secondary sources. At least to the degree of weight already given to La Nación.
 * 5. Article stability? Passes here, as per above.
 * 6. Images?: Passes here, as per above.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Please comment below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , have you had a chance to look at this yet? I could give you more time if you need it. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was out of town and I did not notice this review when I returned. Give me 2 or 3 days and I will update the article. Cambalachero (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay that's fine. Keep me posted here. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added 11 references from Clarín (the most sold newspaper in Argentina) and 13 from La Capital (the most sold newspaper from the city of Rosario). Is this enough, or should I add even more? Still, most of the article was built around the references from La Nación, and that should stay that way if possible: La Nación is a Newspaper of record, the only one in Argentina, and thus the most reliable newspaper from Argentina. Cambalachero (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Passed as GA
Passed as GA. Thanks very much for such responsiveness to my recommendations, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)