Talk:2013 Thane building collapse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prosecution Results (if any)[edit]

The article states that various people were arrested for their part in the illegal construction & collapse of this building, and that some were released on bail. But this is 5 years ago! Have they actually been tried in court for this? Or is it a case where the arrests get lots of publicity, but that dies down, then nothing follows -- a symptom of the corruption that sometimes seems endemic in India? The article should either say what the results of court trials were, or specifically say that no trials have been held, despite 5 years passing. T bonham (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

I wonder if the article should be renamed to something more specific - such as the location, name of the building - or something that helps differentiate it from other building collapses that have or may occur.--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I say cross that bridge if and when it happens. This seems fairly specific with the name '2013 Thane building collapse'. It is also on the main page now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the renamed title - so I think we're good for now. Thanks for letting us know it made the main page!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say but I stay nearly 1 KM from it happened. Information provided is not accurate --Mubasshir (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.38.228 (talk)
That's the great thing about Wikipedia - is a collaborative environment. If you have published information from reliable sources, please update the article. If on the other hand, you'd like to point out what's inaccurate, that would help, too.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying issues section - question about original research[edit]

There was a question about whether the "Underlying issues" section was original research.

Here's the information in the article:

The prevalence of building collapses in India seems to be a multi-faceted problem. There is a lack of housing coupled with high population growth, and illegal buildings are attractive to lower income people because of the low housing costs. Many people moved to the greater Mumbai area in search of jobs, and without affordable housing, thousands sleep in slums or on the streets. The [[Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (India)|Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation]] reports that there are approximately 19 million families with inadequate housing. To meet the demands, there are many buildings constructed illegally. Further, some builders do not follow proper building practices and laws, nor do they execute proper safety measures. Poor construction materials are also to blame in these circumstances. Within the Mumbai region there are estimated to be hundreds of illegal structures that have been built. Sameer Hashmi, BBC reporter, reports that activists "allege that unscrupulous builders often pay hefty bribes to authorities who turn a blind eye to these illegal structures and do not take any action against the builders."<ref name=Reuters/><ref name=BBC/>

Here's the info from BBC - see "Analysis section":

The building collapse underlines the issue of illegal construction in India. Police say the builder of the high rise used sub-standard construction material and did not possess an occupation certificate. There are hundreds of similar illegal high-rises in the Mumbai region. Due to a high population growth, there is always demand for cheap housing. And homes in illegal buildings sell at a lower price compared to those in legal ones. Activists also allege that unscrupulous builders often pay hefty bribes to authorities who turn a blind eye to these illegal structures and do not take any action against the builders.

Here's the information from Reuters

"Unauthorized constructions are a product of unavailability of affordable housing," said Lalit Kumar Jain, president of the Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India. A sharp rise in property prices in densely populated Mumbai over the past five years has put housing out of reach for tens of thousands of lower earners, many of whom moved to the city in search of jobs, and who now sleep on the streets or in slums. In 2012, India's urban housing shortage was estimated at nearly 19 million households, according to a report by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation.

--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I think I missed part of the BBC article when I looked at it. It was a bit confusing since the referenced material is interwoven somewhat...but I guess putting the refs inline isn't really an option, and they do back up the material fine. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely an option to insert inline citations. If you'd like to do that while I recheck source info to ensure our edits don't create close paraphrase issues - go for it! Or, if you can reedit the section about hospital treatment so that the wording reflects that there are people still receiving treatment at the hospital, go for it!
I think the main concern was ensuring that there was no OR issue - and it was quick and easy to take care of that issue. Again, if you'd like inline citations, please feel free - it's absolutely an option!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess I managed to create too-close paraphrases while copyediting without even looking at the relevant refs. :) (So go for it on editing those as appropriate, per your edit summary comments, since you seem more familiar with the sources.) I'll make "Underlying Issues" more clearly referenced if I have a chance later, if that section is still intermingled between the two sources, which is what made it confusing. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're funny! Isn't that the point - to gather info, digest it and rewrite it in our own words. It just didn't seem to be the best use of time, but it seems important to you so here's a summary - I'm not sure if you want citations at each break (including mid-sentence), each sentence cited, or what you have in mind, but here's the breakdown:
  • The prevalence of building collapses in India seems to be a multi-faceted problem. >>> BBC + Reuters
  • There is a lack of housing coupled with high population growth, >>> BBC
  • and illegal buildings are attractive to lower income people because of the low housing costs. >>> BBC + Reuters
  • Many people moved to the greater Mumbai area in search of jobs, and without affordable housing, thousands sleep in slums or on the streets. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation reports that there are approximately 19 million families with inadequate housing. To meet the demands, there are many buildings constructed illegally. >>> Reuters
  • Further, some builders do not follow proper building practices and laws, nor do they execute proper safety measures. Poor construction materials are also to blame in these circumstances. >>> BBC + Reuters
  • Within the Mumbai region there are estimated to be hundreds of illegal structures that have been built. >>> BBC
  • Sameer Hashmi, BBC reporter, reports that activists "allege that unscrupulous builders often pay hefty bribes to authorities who turn a blind eye to these illegal structures and do not take any action against the builders." >>> BBC

How would you like it broken down - each time there's a break, every sentence?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that huge a deal :)...it's clearly verifiable from the refs, so that part's all good. I'll clean it up from your quite-detailed breakdown if I have a chance. I was thinking of reordering into one chunk to attribute to Reuters and another to the BBC, but messing with the flow to do that probably isn't worth the effort. Plenty of other stuff to clean up that's less trivial... (Edit: Well, and you already referenced them individually, which is even more clear! Nice job; thanks. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted the inline citations - feel free to regroup as makes most sense to you.--CaroleHenson (talk)

Summary of cross-check of edits and info[edit]

I'm getting a little confused by the edits - and where we're at, so I thought I'd summarize things here.

  1. Construction section quote - copy editing. There had been several edits to the quotes, so I reverted it to the text from the news agency. I see the point about: " its->it's (simple typographic error as transcribed, per MOS:QUOTE)".
  2. Regarding the statement with counts, I just moved 100 survivors first, to help reduce the close paraphrasing issue. Of the three sources, the one that is most like our text is the BBC article, "especially 72 people died, including 26 children". At least mixing up the order helps a bit. Any other suggestions to present the info most clearly, while limiting close paraphrasing is much appreciated!

    Now: There were more than 100 survivors. 72 people died, including 26 children, and 36–62 people were injured. The search for additional survivors ended on 6 April 2013, but the death toll may increase.

  3. I cannot find one source that mentions that the 10 month old girls parents have been found. There is a mention of someone who is taking care of the child - I think a hospital worker. Anyway, I'll post a message for the person that made the edit to see if they can pinpoint the source. In the meantime, since all reports say the search for her parents have been in vain, I reverted the text to say that the parents have not been located.

By the way, for all the edits that have been made: thanks for the edits! There have been a lot of great edits that made the article clearer, more wikified, etc. I just have to break this down step-by-step so that I'm clear - and hopefully the documentation helps clarify things for anyone who made edits, etc.

--- work in progress, will continue to update as I go so it's clear what's happening.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the 10-month-old girl, that was me recasting to keep the material from being immediately outdated; I wasn't trying to imply that the parents had been found. It probably would've been more clear to state "as of <most recent reference date>, the parents hadn't been found" or similar. The was referred to her being an initial survivor; for all we know, she's now an 11-month-old girl! (There's plenty of stuff already dated, or soon to be, that'll need to be cleaned up in a few days in any case, so I guess it's not worth trying to make every minor thing read properly right now.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah!!! That makes sense. I went through this morning and did a thorough review of newly published information to what is in the article and I'll do so again today. I'll be more mindful of checking for tense cases. Well, in the meantime, I added a bit about "as of 6 April 2013" to the sentence about the 10 month old girl. It's a good idea!--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. Tense changes for the first paragraph of the "Rescue" section. I took a stab to reflect ongoing activities, but it's a bit late and my head's a little fuzzy. I would think that since it's only been a couple of days at least some the people with serious injuries are still getting treatment -- and I would imagine it's possible that even the folks with moderate injuries may be hospitalized. Hopefully the news in the morning will help clarify the status of these folks. In the meantime, Feel free to make updates to be clearer about what is completed and what is ongoing.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. I reworded the sentence about compensation - good catches (like next of kin wouldn't be paid for the injured folks!), but reordered the two forms of compensation to try to help resolve close paraphrasing. Kind of hard to avoid when it's numerical info. This should be the last item now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C class --> GA[edit]

Hi there, The article has been rerated (thanks!) to a "C" class - and I'd like to make it a good article.

I could be wrong, but I thought it's best to have the articles in "A" class to make it to a Good article. What should be done to move it from "C" to the "A" class area?

I checked out the good article criteria and have tried tackling them:

  • well written: clear, concise, follows WP:MOS, etc.
  • verifiable
  • proper in-line citations, no original research
  • broad, but not too much detail
  • neutral
  • stable (no edit wars or disputes)
  • images, if possible

What of these areas, or something else, should be improved upon? Any comments are much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are some areas of improvement related to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, so I'll check that out and I'm finding more copy edit issues. So, maybe that will help.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article name (2)[edit]

Hi, In response to comments in the edit summary about the article name. Yep, I see your point.

When I do searches for updated content, Thane building collapse helps get content, but some more specific titles might be something like:

  • 2013 Mumbra building collapse
  • 2013 Shil Phata area building collapse *
  • 2013 Lucky compound building collapse *
  • Thane district building collapse 4 April 2013

* Shil Phata and Lucky compound might be too specific if someone was searching for the article, not a lot of articles get that specific.

What do you think about the possible options?--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" It has been called the worst building collapse in the area."[edit]

That's not a particularly strong or useful claim. Is there something more useful? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 Thane building collapse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Thane_building_collapse&oldid=1212405163"