Talk:29 presumed dead after second explosion at New Zealand mine

Verification

Emergency services did not respond to the first explosion at 3.45, according to the timeline source. --Pi zero (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't seem to find anything about every 30 minutes for air samples. (That's specific enough that I'm wondering if I'm missing a pocket of information somewhere.)

The source info I see says the first robot had water-related "mechanical issues", not that it shorted out. Later it says that the first robot was "restarted", but I'm unclear as to whether that means it was removed from the mine. --Pi zero (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I also can't confirm the sentence

On Tuesday, the Police Commissioner, Minister of Police, Minister for Energy, and Prime Minister all confirmed they supported the decision not to send rescuers in until expert analysis showed the mine is safe.

nor the 95 percent methane figure, nor that the first robot was for bomb disposal. I'm now leaning toward missing source, possibly undeclared original reporting. --Pi zero (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

More I don't find in the sources: That Knowles was the one who talked about risk of rescuers setting off another explosion. That the water that caused problems for the first robot was on the floor (!). A connection between the mayor's initial hopeful statement, and knowledge of the seriousness of the blast (this article seems to imply that the mayor acknowledged this). A connection between the families' frustration and the availability of breathing apparatus.

I'm willing to grant that the two miners who walked out must have been closer to the entrance. I don't see any explicit statement about the purpose of the bore hole; exactly how far the statement of purpose here can be deduced from the sources, I'm afraid haven't fully investigated, as I'm getting fact-checking fatigue. I also haven't thoroughly vetted the last paragraph. --Pi zero (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1134014 [Failed]

Revision 1134014 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See the talk section above. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Queasy time sequence in later paragraphs. Para starting "On Tuesday" seems to have some events from Wednesday, as may the paragraph before it. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1134014 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See the talk section above. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Queasy time sequence in later paragraphs. Para starting "On Tuesday" seems to have some events from Wednesday, as may the paragraph before it. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Review of revision 1134014 [Failed]

Revision 1134014 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Half the stuff in this article isn't in any of the sources. I read every word of the sources carefully before reading this article, and it's largely unsourced. My guess is that the Assosiated Press article was used as a "near copy and paste" plagerized source, and then purposefully left out to make it appear like it was simply a normal article. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1134014 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Half the stuff in this article isn't in any of the sources. I read every word of the sources carefully before reading this article, and it's largely unsourced. My guess is that the Assosiated Press article was used as a "near copy and paste" plagerized source, and then purposefully left out to make it appear like it was simply a normal article. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

oops, I didn't realized Pizero was reviewing this too. Gopher65_talk 03:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-review

Hey reviewers, could you give it another look please? I've tried to address all your concerns, and if it looked unsourced before, it was because I've have been following the story so closely, I could have written the article from memory (not because I was attempting to plagiarize unnoticed, thank you very much p.s. assume good faith). Gintyfrench (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just to be a tad cheeky, AGF is a sore point here - it is not likely to be applied in relation to potential plagiarism.

I've cut two duped sources; copyedited the 1st (any lost detail can be readded post-lede). Will try some more c/e shortly ('that' is a fout-letter word &c). But, does look in-depth and largely good work.

Can sources be sorted - newest to oldest by dates?--Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• That, sadly, is all the copyedit time I've got. Last point: Can it be retitled to avoid the number at the start? Ideally, when the title/subject starts with any number it is spelt out.

There may need to be further c/e for tense consistency - do either of the above reviews consider this completely fact-checked? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Brian. Fair enough on the plagiarism, but he just says I copied "the Assosiated (sic) Press article" - I don't even know what he means by that; I don't know if we have AP in little old NZ. I used TVNZ mostly. OK about removing sources, but what do you mean about 'duped'? Each new article I referenced backed up a statement reviewers had concerns about, but if you think it's OK. Will try to order sources. I don't know how to edit title sorry, and I agree I struggled with tense consistency, as it was still happening. Gintyfrench (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

AP is a global news organisation. They report in NZ. (although I personally prefer AFP) — μ 10:44, November 25 2010 (UTC)

• I apologise for my ignorance, and assure you all that I haven't actually read their article, and the close similarity in headline is coincidence. Gintyfrench (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

These are the duplicates (dupes). [1][2] The timeline and 'darkest hour' articles were each linked twice until Brian fixed them. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

AP and Reuters

About The Associated Press: Most news agencies have fired most of their investigative journalists (they're going bankrupt due to competition from 24 hour cable news and web news sources), so they have to rely on two global news agencies: The Associated Press (AP) and Reuters. Between the two of them they write most of the news you read (even local stuff sometimes). The Associated Press sells their articles to a large number of national and local newspapers, broadcast stations, and cable news networks. Quite often CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC (the Aussie one), CBC, al Jazeera, and The Star Phoenix (my local paper) will all run identical articles. If you look closely at the articles, somewhere it will say ©AP or ©Reuters, meaning that it was originally written by the Associated Press or Reuters and sold to all those news agencies.

So it's very likely that many of the articles you read on this situation over the past week were written by the AP. The fact that you picked up some of their phrasing without meaning to isn't that surprising, I suppose. It happens sometimes. Forgive my assumption that you purposefully plagiarized; it happens so often that it's usually a safe assumption to make. Gopher65_talk 18:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Haha, true, my wee local paper is full of them, but many of the articles I read were from the two NZ TV stations, which each had about a billion reporters in Greymouth all week. Gintyfrench (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-review verification

I still can't verify the sentence about taking air samples every 30 minutes.

Regarding the list of four people expressing support for the decision not to send in rescuers, I've found scattered verifications (or what seem to be such) for three of them, but still haven't collected the Minister of Energy.

I'm still working on the last paragraph.

BTW, there seem to be two or three sources that I'm not sure are used for anything. For future reference, please don't add sources that aren't used as it makes extra work for peer-reviewers. --Pi zero (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't confirm the following incident, although the timeline has a much less detailed (and slightly inconsistent) hint of something in its entry for Saturday at 1.12. If it's a confusion that occurred on Saturday then I don't know why it's in the final paragraph, wedged between things that happened at the tail end.

The Grey District Mayor reported that a recovery team had gone in while gas levels were still low. In a more extended briefing, the Pike River Mining chief executive explained this had not occurred as the mine was still too dangerous, but that they would do everything they could to recover the bodies.

--Pi zero (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've found the extended briefing, after the second explosion, in which a rumor was dispelled about rescuers going in, but I don't know where the rumor came from. --Pi zero (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It was definitely the mayor who started the rumour at his press conference, see 5:25pm in the "Pike River Mine disaster - Day 6 after second explosion" – TVNZ/NZPA/Newstalk ZB, November 24, 2010 source. Gintyfrench (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1134303 [Passed]

Revision 1134303 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I removed three details that I hadn't managed to find in the sources. If verified they can be added in within 24 hours after publication. 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 1134303 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I removed three details that I hadn't managed to find in the sources. If verified they can be added in within 24 hours after publication. 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.