Wikipedia:Peer review/Mexico City Metro overpass collapse/archive1

Mexico City Metro overpass collapse

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because this is the first time I've written such a comprehensive article since I co-wrote Halo (Beyoncé song) 10 years ago. I would like to turn it initially into a GA and maybe later into a FA. Right now (excluding minor grammar and syntax errors that may exist) I think my main hesitation is the overall structure of the article. While everything is arranged chronologically, I sometimes feel that some things can be omitted or placed elsewhere, or that some sections can be mixed up. I also have a problem with a paragraph in "Immediate aftermath" ("The current and former heads of government of Mexico City, Sheinbaum and Ebrard...) as I feel the paragraph is out of place (I did not add it and it exists since May) and while it is true what it says, I do not think it will affect the candidacies of the politicians, especially since none is (nor will be) under investigation.

If possible, I would also like advice on what could be summarized, omitted or added. Thanks in advance, (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch: Overall this was a very well-written article.

Section-by-section comments:

In the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead, it says ...that had to be opened by 2010, but I think ...that was scheduled to open by 2010 would be better unless there is a specific reason why it had to open by 2010.

Reworded.

Overall the second paragraph has a lot of detail that doesn't become relevant until later. It would be better to lead with the hook, e.g. The construction of the line presented technical and structural problems and suffered damage from an earthquake in 2017 and then elaborate on the background.

Reworded.

The last paragraph of the lead mentions that charges were filed against ten former officials. If they have been convicted or acquitted by now, that would be useful information to include.

Updated.

In the "Rolling stock" section the sentences about the Bombardier and FE-10 trains are a little confusing. Is it meant to suggest that the line used trains heavier than it was designed for?

Yes, I reworded it to "The FE-10 trains, nevertheless, are wider and heavier." for clarification.

Under "Issues" it says was closed 17 months after the line's opening for a further 20 months. I don't understand what this means.

Reordered.

In the same section it says the trains' operations were safe, but were at the acceptable limit of safety. I guess at the acceptable limit of safety is meant to suggest it was very close to not being safe, but the wording doesn't get that across very well. Perhaps rephrase?

Rephrased to train operations were within the accepted limit of safety.

In "Immediate aftermath" it says Service on the entirety of Line 12... has remained closed. Is this still true? If so it should say as of December 2021.

Yes, the section is still unbuilt, and even when they rebuild it there's no guarantee other sections won't collapse. Because of that supports like these were proposed to be placed throughout the elevated section (or at the very least, what Carso built). This info is not here as I'm still waiting for the reconstruction to start.
However, I rephrased it to "Service on the entirety of Line 12 was suspended" and moved the remaining to the reopening section: "Since that night, service on the entirety of Line 12 has remained closed. According to Sheinbaum, its reconstruction is expected to be completed by 2022."

In "Investigations", it says Sheinbaum... denied having leaked information but the leaking allegations were not previously mentioned in the article.

I rephrased it to "said she did not leak information" I don't know if that helps. At the moment she denied it, DNV was about to release their report and some sources were saying that someone had leaked information about it to the NYT.

The last three sections of the article are a little short on links.

I think you are referring to Investigations, Planned reopening and Outcome. If so, everything there is attributed to at least one source. As the article is 108kb long, I think the opposite should be done (i.e WP:OVERKILL), as some sources before these sections are just repeating what other recent sources have said. I wrote most of the article, but most of the sources added between May 4 and May 11 (especially in English) were added by multiple editors.

Sorry, when I say "links" I mean wikilinks, not citations. I just find large swathes of black text with minimal blue links hard to read, but that might just be a personal preference.

Most of the available subjects were already linked and those needing links are redlinks. Nelson Stud Welding, Inc., El Financiero (Mexico), Attorney General of Mexico City, Colegio de Ingenieros Civiles de México, and maybe Guillermo Calderón (engineer) and Enrique Horcasitas are the most notable subjects without articles. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Outcome" isn't the best title for the section. Maybe "Lawsuits" or "Litigation"?

As the section has information related to other things beyond litigations, I chose "outcome" as a synonym of "consequences", I don't know what else can work.

Miscellaneous overall thoughts:

The use of em dashes in the article was a little excessive, so I changed some of them.

Ok, no problem.

According to Mexican peso, both MX$ and Mex$ are appropriate symbols for Mexican pesos. I think the former reads better.

Changed, I think this was the original style, but someone else changed it while it was a popular page.

In general, the verb inform needs to take an argument, so phrases like They informed that feel unnatural; much better would be, e.g., They informed the public that.

Changed and thanks, I'll need to verify other articles I have written.

Regarding your specific concerns:

The chronological organization of the article makes complete sense to me.
I think the paragraph in "Immediate aftermath" is relevant as long as it is supported by reliable sources and not speculation.
In terms of what could be summarized, omitted or added, it seems comprehensive to me.

Let me know if you have any questions, either about my feedback here or the edits I made on the article itself. Rublov (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublov: Thank you for the review. I was thinking of closing it in January and nominating it directly to GAN. I left additional comments. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch: Looks great. Responded inline to one of your points. Rublov (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]