Talk:2023 New York City parking garage collapse

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that during the 2023 New York City parking garage collapse, a robotic dog, named Digidog, was deployed by the New York City Fire Department to analyze the structural collapse site, the first ever to be used? Source: https://abc7ny.com/robot-dog-digidog-drones-parking-garage-collapse/13150919/
  • ALT1: ... that the age of the structure and an excess amount of vehicles contributed to the 2023 New York City parking garage collapse? Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/deadly-garage-collapse-new-york-city-likely-due-buildings-nearly-100-y-rcna80454
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KLKN

Created by Tails Wx (talk). Self-nominated at 13:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2023 New York City parking garage collapse; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @Tails Wx: Not a review, but I'd like to briefly note that the Hill source doesn't mention the Digidog at all. After a little digging, I found this source, where FDNY operations chief John Esposito said: "This is the first time that we've been able to fly inside in a collapse to do this and try to get us some information again without risking the lives of firefighters." I think this is the first time the FDNY used the Digidog in a structural collapse, so ALT1 ALT0 should probably be clarified to that effect.
  Great work on the article on the way. I noticed that SecretName101 and I appear to be major contributors as well; do you mind if he and I are also credited? Epicgenius (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Epicgenius, I've clarified ALT0 (and not ALT1, but unless I'm mistaken, please remind me) and I've updated the website source. And thanks, you can add yourselves to be credited! Tails Wx 14:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: The change to ALT0 looks good to me. I misspoke, my apologies; I don't think there's anything wrong with ALT1. And thanks - I just wanted to make sure you were fine with me adding SecretName101 and myself. I didn't want to seem like I was imposing Epicgenius (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Epicgenius–no worries! Thanks for the improvements that you and SecretName101 made! Tails Wx 14:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Epicgenius: thanks for making those suggestions as it helped me formally review this nomination. @Tails Wx: AGF you either have done QPQ, are eligible for a free DYK, or you will complete one and attach to the nom? MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I've done one here: Template:Did you know nominations/KLKN, but I'm not sure if this can be re-used, as it was already used as QPQ in Template:Did you know nominations/2023 Fort Lauderdale floods, can it, MaxnaCarta? Sorry for the confusion; I'll remember this for future DYKs! Tails Wx 12:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2023 New York City parking garage collapse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 19:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 10:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for nominating this article. I'll review it during the course of this week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

• There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 31.0% in similarity.
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable.
• No previous GA reviews.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • No major issues were found in the article. I've made some minor improvemenets: See Special:Diff/1244371791.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • I'd recommend shortening the lede a bit. The article is overall really short, but the lede currently sits at three paragraphs and 293 words. I'll leave it up to you to remove whatever you think that is not important enough (e.g. "who was a 59-year-old and the manager of the garage").
  • The rest of the article complies with the MOS:LAYOUT and MOS:WTW guidelines. There is no fiction and embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:WAF and MOS:EMBED.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article.
  • No referencing issues.
  • Listed references are reliable.
  • Spotchecked Ref 1, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 25, 30, 31, 40–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
  • Copyvio already checked.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • What did the Digidog do?
  • The rest of the article addresses the main aspects, and it stays focused on the topic.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, the article has been stable.
• Checking images.
  • Optional: Add alt text to images.
  • Images are properly licensed.

Final comments

@Tails Wx: There are a couple of things to fix, and once they get addressed, I'll promote the article. The review will be put on hold for a week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vacant0: All done! Added some alt text to both images in the article as well. ~ Tails Wx 15:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks good now, so good job. Promoting. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll list the article at "Engineering failures and disasters" because the article was nominated under "Computing and engineering". Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.