Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 September 2024 [1].

2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just before Christmas in 2016, dozens of people in the Russian city of Irkutsk woke up to discover that they could no longer see. Others never woke at all.

It quickly became clear that these people were suffering from methanol poisoning after drinking a contaminated batch of unregulated surrogate alcohol. In the end, 74 people died—a toll that the Associated Press called "unprecedented in its scale"—and the Russian government took a few actions to try to prevent it from happening again.

I wrote the original draft of this article in 2016 after I read this New York Times article. I successfully nominated it for ITN in the same month and GA in mid-2017. I'm looking forward to any comments you might share. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sodium

[edit]
  • Shouldn't the first section be named something like "Background"
    • Done
  • Nikishin, thea vodka historian -- Also define a "vodka historian", that's not a phrase most people associate with a profession
    • "The" is meant to refer to the earlier mention of Nikishin. I adopted that phrasing from news articles because I liked how it split the difference between repeating full names and professions vs. hoping people remembered the first reference. Would refactoring "vodka historian" as "historian of vodka" make things more clear?
  • I'm not really sure about the fact that the concept of methanol poisoning is defined in the article after two or three references to methanol poisoning itself.
    • I struggled with this one. I definitely see where you're coming from, but the background section is discussing the issues related to alcoholism and surrogate alcohols in Russia—not necessarily methanol poisoning. I did remove one sentence that improperly conflated the two, and I'm open to removing the rest of the info given about alcohol poisoning. That's different from methanol poisoning and may be confusing to readers in this context.
  • The two alcohols are similar in many respects and cannot readily be distinguished, and their contents differed from the labels on the bottles, which indicated that they contained ethanol. An investigation later revealed that the methanol was usually used in the local production of windshield washer fluid, known locally as antifreeze. I'm confused here, were the bottles mislabelled or was it that windshield washer fluid was used because it was cheaper (as you mention in paragraphs before) ?
    • Both. The bad batch was placed into the standard bath oil bottles, which were labeled as containing ethanol.
  • Who conducted said investigation ?
    • Fixed. It was the government.
  • A picture of ethanol v/s methanol bottles would drive the point home for the first paragraph of the "Events" section
    • If I'm understanding this ask correctly, we unfortunately don't have freely licensed photos of these bottles. That's why I used {{external media}} near the top. The ethanol and methanol bottles were the same per above. Never mind. I assume you mean a photo of ethanol vs. methanol to drive home how similar they are. There isn't anything on Commons in one photo, but I've reached out to WP:CHEMISTRY.
  • drinking too much non-fraudulent ethanol-based bath oil Whether or not this incident was caused by actual fraud is explicitly never addressed in the article, I would advise you to figure that out and tweak the wording of this sentence or add more context accordingly.
    • Fixed. This was a really good flag, and I can't believe I didn't see this myself!
  • Of the remainder, a problem in attempting to treat them was that fomepizole, a methanol antidote, is not certified for use in Russia and is therefore not available in the country's hospitals. This sentence feels stilted
    • Fixed, I hope.
  • Overall, the victims included teachers, nurses, and drivers; The New York Times described the majority as holding "steady if low-paying jobs".
    • Fixed.
  • What is "counterfeit oil" in About 500 liters (130 U.S. gal) of remaining counterfeit oil were seized from the underground facility where it had been produced, does it refer to the methanol laced oil or the bath oil which turned into vodka in general ?
    • The former. I hope this is now fixed; I discovered that I had read the reference wrong and that the 500 liters were seized from local shops in addition to authorities discovering the underground facility.
    • Hello Sohom Datta and thanks so much for giving this a read. I've left comments inline above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, this is some really good work, I think my concerns have been addressed. Can't find anything else to criticize. Sohom (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Nikkimaria

[edit]

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

[edit]
  • Instead of "the Associated Press news agency" statement, we should have our own Wikipedia statement on whether this was the biggest mass poisoning in (Russia). THough it could be used as a reference.
    • I have not seen a reference that compares mass poisonings in Russia, unfortunately, and for methanol specifically List of methanol poisoning incidents#Russia only shows several other incidents from 2021 and 2023. The full quote is: "Poisonings caused by cheap surrogate alcohol are a regular occurrence, but the Irkutsk case was unprecedented in its scale." I've expanded the lead and better clarified what the quote is referring to?
  • We could explain that "Боярышник" means hawthorn.
    • Done.
  • A quote from Alexander Nikishin should probably be reworded in Wikipedia voice.
    • Done.
  • 4 deaths → four deaths MOS:NUM
    • Done.
  • Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Graeme Bartlett: Thank you—I really appreciate the thorough review and time you spent reading the article. I've responded inline above. I also would love to confirm with you that this newly added/tweaked sentence is accurate: "The human body breaks down methanol into formaldehyde and formic acid, both of which act as nerve toxins and damage the optic nerve." 'Nerve toxins' is the phrase used by DW, but I wanted to make sure it wasn't being used improperly. Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Penitentes

[edit]
  • The number of affected people could go in the lead.
    • Done.
  • According to early reports on 19 December, a total of 57 people were hospitalized - Is this the earliest known point at which people fell ill? It's not entirely clear over what kind of time span the poisonings unfolded.
    • Thanks for pushing me on this. Previously, all the sources I'd seen didn't give an exact date... or so I thought, as this journal article did give a start date. I've added it.
  • In the immediate aftermath of the poisoning, a state of emergency was declared. - Who declared the state of emergency? Was it municipal authorities, the Siberian regional government, or a higher power? That would eliminate the passive voice, too. I would also include the date.
    • It was the mayor of Irkutsk! Good catch.
  • The article defines Rospotrebnadzor as the federal consumer rights protection agency in both the Background section and the Aftermath section. The latter definition can probably be removed!
    • I'm split on this. There's a big gap between mention #1 and #2, and I don't like to assume that readers go through articles in order from top to bottom.

Overall, a solid article! — Penitentes (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Penitentes: Thanks so much for the review! I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I've responded to your comments inline. Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BorgQueen

[edit]

Support from UC

[edit]

An interesting story -- maybe short of a full review, but some things that stuck out to me as I read:

  • Make sure that Russian and transliterated text are in the appropriate templates, for the benefit of screen readers.
    • Done.
  • Russia's government agency devoted to consumer protection, Rospotrebnadzor, recorded about 36,000 such poisonings in the first nine months of 2016, resulting in over 9,000 deaths.: we need to put this figure in context -- how did that compare with previous figures? How much confidence do we have that Putin's government would report this accurately?
    • I included this as a way of showing the scale of the problem, and not to prove the preceding statement around increasing deaths over time. I'm open to removing it. To your second question, in several areas of the article I've tried to be very specific when the information's source is either the state or state-owned media.
      • Even just to show the scale, it needs some kind of context -- it's obviously a big number, and a single death is a tragedy, but 9,000 deaths a year in Wales would be a different proposition to 9,000 deaths in China. I think showing change over time would be one good way to do this: otherwise, was this the largest in the world? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I decided to remove this in place of a note around alcohol poisonings being generally high in Russia prior to the increase. I went looking for additional sources to contexualize it, but then I found that the WHO said in 2018 that "The measurement of alcohol poisoning deaths may be affected by the miscoding of alcohol poisonings as cardiovascular diseases [...] however, the miscoding of alcohol poisonings appears to be limited to the former Soviet Union". So the direct-from-government stats I was quoting are likely to be quite wrong anyway. (The new addition cites the study the WHO cited.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • bath oil named boyaryshnik or Боярышник, after its hawthorn scent: I think we need to spell out that Боярышник is the Russian for 'hawthorn'.
    • I believe this is fixed. I was trying to avoid repeating "hawthorn", but you were right to question the phrasing and I'm struggling to find a better solution.
  • Everybody knew that it was not bath oil", one individual later told the US newspaper The New York Times. "That label was just meant to fend off the inspectors": who is this individual? What gives them the authority to make such a sweeping pronouncement?
    • The quote is from a local that does not have any authority on their own, so I omitted the name. I decided to include it in relying on the editorial judgement of Neil MacFarquhar, who was The New York Times' Moscow bureau chief at the time and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer in 2017 for reports about Russia. I don't believe MacFarquhar would have included the quote if it wasn't effectively true.
      • I'm not happy here, I'm afraid. Journalists include sometimes quotations because they're authoritative, sure, but they also include them to add flavour, to be seen to be presenting the views of local people, or even to distance themselves from the views put forward -- it may be significant, for example, that MacFarquhar chose not to write, in his own voice, "everyone in Russia knows that the bath oil is meant to be drunk". However, I imagine it would be fairly trivial to find another source which does say that people were selling drinking alcohol as other plausibly-deniable products in Russia at this time, and that this was widely known? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • MacFarquhar did write that in his own voice. :-p Specifically, he said: "[...] it was common knowledge that bootleggers produced the rotgut specifically as poor man's vodka". I've removed the quote and left the citation intact, as the other part of the article's preceding sentence is covered by another part of the NYT piece: "They felt they were being scapegoated for the illicit vodka trade, which the police had long tolerated, if not controlled". Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes need citations.
  • As days went by, subsequent reports increased the number of impacted people: I notice that each of these reports comes from a different source, so it's not easy to differentiate change over time versus different sources/counting methods/reliability/whatever of different news organisations.
    • I've rewritten this paragraph to use only sources that explicitly cited the local health ministry in their articles. I feel pretty confident that's the source the previous sources were using too, as none of them said they were counting in other ways, but WP:V is better satisfied in the new formulation. Thanks for calling this out!
  • We have a couple of figures given in roubles: it would help to give a sense to non-Russian readers of how much money these represent.
    • Done. {{To USD}} is a great template, or I've filled in conversions directly from the sources. If you were actually hoping to see inflation-adjusted figures, I don't think {{inflation}} can handle cross-currency conversions. I might be able to use something like Measuring Worth with citations?
  • Lots here relies on news sources from inside the news cycle, which have their concerns. Can we pull some of that information from more retrospective studies instead?
    • Solid portions rely on things published outside the news cycle. The two most significant sources used in the article are the retrospective New York Times MacFarquhar piece (15 calls) and an academic piece to give this significant attention (9 calls, +1 more with info from its appendix; I could add more citations to a table that provides a bullet list of Russian government actions during/after the poisoning, but in most cases the news articles provided more detail.). I'd also call out the Deutsche Welle article, which was published a week after the poisonings began and deliberately takes a step back to give a wide view of the incident.
    • Overall, I would argue that the in-cycle news sources are appropriately used. Many are in the incident section, as you might expect, and in the aftermath section for things like legal cases and politician pronouncements. Others have been mined for the background info they provided, thereby acting as a secondary source in that context. I'd also note that I've dropped sources that made errors while trying to catch the cycle (NPR and the now-defunct Siberian Times). That said, I've gone through to trim unnecessary references, most of which were news cycle-specific.
      • An update here a day later: I did additional digging for retrospective resources and came across a Siberian Medical Journal article in the references of another article. That hadn't shown up in my prior searching, but I've now integrated it into the article. Of note, it gives two numbers for the death toll, so I've explained the source discrepancy in a new footnote. I've also added two academic articles from 2018. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the Lachenmeier article doing in Further Reading? What does it add that hasn't been incorporated into the article?
    • I don't seem to have access to this article any more. My memory is that while it was a research synthesis follow-up on unrecorded alcohol use in Russia by the same authors as the main academic source on this poisoning, it did not have any info that I wanted to add to the article proper. I don't mind removing it if you feel strongly.
  • Similarly, why the link to Khodorkovsky's blog?
    • My thinking was it met WP:ELMAYBE #4. It's not a reliable source, but a then-prominent opposition politician's voice felt worthy of inclusion somewhere. That said, I have even less attachment to this link than the further reading one, so I'm happy to remove it if you feel strongly.
      • We might do well to incorporate it into the text -- to say "Khodorkovsky, a prominent opposition politician, said...", and link it as a source. Even better if someone else has got there first and reported the remarks at second hand, so we can then cite it to that reliable source and say "K. made his remarks on his blog, at [this place]" UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Y'know, the note around secondary sourcing got me thinking. As far as I can tell, Khodorkovsky's article had effectively no impact. I searched and found exactly one public post on Facebook and zero on the website formerly known as Twitter. There may have been mentions in Russian opposition reporting or social media that I can't easily search for without knowing the language, but without evidence of that I removed the link. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, UndercoverClassicist! You said that this wasn't a full review, but you nevertheless hit on some great points that I'm grateful for. You can find inline replies above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 07:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, UndercoverClassicist. I dropped more replies above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one -- a small issue, but the map in the infobox currently looks very odd indeed with the frame-within-a-frame, at least on my screen. I did have a go at fixing, but no success. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: I'd noticed that too and couldn't address it. Thankfully, it appears to only be a desktop issue—I'm not seeing it on the mobile version or the Android app. Even on desktop, though, I think it still looks better and gives better context (through interactivity) than a location map. I'll ask Module talk:Mapframe and see if there's a solution we're missing. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't claim to actually understand all the inscrutable maplink attributes, but I cargo-culted what has worked for me in the past and that seems to have fixed it. RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, RoySmith! I can't believe I missed the |plain= parameter that is almost at the top of Template:Maplink#Usage... sigh. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're almost there, but looking at the "incident" section, I see a lot of choppy, short paragraphs and a couple of prose infelicities (repetition of death toll, MOS:CLICHE of pegged the number of deaths at, a break of MOS:LQ with the AP quotation). Could you give that section a look with this in mind?
  • A smaller point, but does uncovered an underground facility mean "beneath the earth" as well as "illicit and hidden"? If so, no problem; if not, suggest another word.
    • Ah, interesting thought. The AP called it an "underground facility", and I echoed that language. I haven't seen other sources give detail on it. I tweaked the sentence clause to say "uncovered a bath oil production facility". Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another small one, sorry -- to keep drinkable medicinal tinctures, antiseptics, and Eau de Cologne on retail shelves: MOS:CLICHE again -- they wanted to keep them available for sale, not literally on shelves (in fact, they were meant to move off the shelves into people's homes). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from RoySmith

[edit]

Just a few things I see quickly. I may or may not come back for a full review.

  • Paychecks totaling around 15,000 rubles (about US$246 in 2016) were common is that per week?
  • Russia remained as one of the highest consumers per capita in the world that should say "highest consumers of alcohol ...". Also that's immediately followed by "an average yearly consumption of 11.7 liters". The first sentence is talking about the country, the next sentence switches to per-person, so you should say that.
    • Fixed.
  • even amidst the declining economic situation I'm not sure "even" adds anything.
    • Fixed.
  • Experts estimated ... Other experts estimated we've got a lot of anonymous experts. Would it be possible to specify who, specifically, is doing the estimating?
    • The New York Times doesn't attribute their expert figure, while RBC attributes Federal Service for Alcohol Market Regulation numbers on surrogate alcohols consumed, then compares them to Federal State Statistics Service (Russia) on overall alcohol retail sales. For the second sentence, The Long Hangover doesn't attribute their expert, and The Moscow Times attributes "Vadim Drobiz, the head of the Center for Federal and Regional Alcohol Market Studies, an independent think tank." That's why I left it all generalized, but I'm open to reworking these sentences to get more specific if you'd like.
  • I'd move File:Total alcohol consumption per capita - litres of pure alcohol - 2015.png down so it lines up with the start of the paragraph At the same time, Russia remained ...
    • Done.
  • caused by a fraudulently produced batch fraudulently produced or fraudulently lableled?
    • Both, really. I've removed "produced".
  • nerve toxins -> neurotoxins?
    • The source says "nerve toxins", and I've left a question for Graeme above on whether that's an appropriate phrase to use.
  • and 500 liters (130 U.S. gal) of remaining fraudulent bath oil from around 100 retailers in the Irkutsk area there's no verb here.
    • Ah! Whoops. Thanks and fixed.
  • Twenty-three people involved in the production of the oil ... including ... police officers, and a senior regional government official this makes it sound like the police officers and the government official were involved in the production. Or maybe that was indeed the case?
    • Not the case. I've copyedited the sentence.
  • Thanks for your comments, RoySmith! I've left inline replies above and hope you decide to come back to review the whole thing. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, coming back for another pass...

  • over 70 people died[A] in a mass methanol poisoning I don't know if there's any grammatical reasoning to back this up, but to me this makes it sound like an intentional attack, similar to "in a mass shooting". I'd rephrase it as "died of methanol poisoning" or perhaps even be more explicit with "died of accidental methanol poisoning". Same logic for the following sentence, "the incident was the deadliest methanol poisoning".
    • Done. Please take a look at the new wording, as you may have additional thoughts on the second sentence in particular.
  • available from supermarkets, strategically placed vending machines, and other shops. I'd drop the "strategically placed"; you do explain in Background why you call them strategically placed, but I don't think you need that in the lead. Also, "other shops" goes with supermarkets, but a vending machine isn't a shop, so that's an odd construction.
    • Fair points! I removed the two words and changed "and other shops" to "and more".
  • I'd zoom the infobox map out a couple of steps; the context you get now is where Irkutsk is relative to Mongolia and China, but you want to show where it is relative to Russia.
    • I wish I had more choices, but AFAIK we're limited to zoom=1 or the current zoom=2. I love the interactivity mapframe brings, but its display inflexibility is unfortunate in this case.
  • other restrictions introduced in recent years to curb alcohol consumption in the country. Recent relative to when?
    • Fixed.
  • symptoms of methanol toxicity include central nervous system depression the source says "it destroys the central nervous system". You might want to get an opinion from a medical SME on whether "central nervous system depression" is an accurate way to say that.
    • I'll drop a question over at WP:MED. Stand by.
  • They delivered the bodies straight to a morgue Who is "they"? "Irkutsk authorities"? "city residents"? "homeless individuals"? "numerous people"?
    • Second on that list. Fixed!
  • She consumed two shots, which was enough to kill her How much is two shots? Maybe just link to "Shot glass".
    • Fixed.
  • about US$199 I'd make that "about $200" ({{To USD}}'s resolution should do the trick).
    • Done! Took a bit while I figured out that the |r= parameter allows for negative integers.
  • Russian authorities ... detained twenty-three people ... the last of 19 individuals jailed or fined Be consistent in your use of figures vs spelling out numbers.
    • Huh, I don't know why I used different formats there. Fixed.
  • Alexei Navalny, an opposition politician, opined ... I'm not sure this counts as an "opinion", so I'd use "said". MOS:SAID.

HF - support

[edit]

I'll review this; the topic seems interesting. As full disclosure, I know very little about alcohol firsthand due to being a Southern Baptist. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link Irkutsk at the first mention in the body
  • "At the same time, Russia remained one of the highest consumers per capita in the world" - alcohol has yet to be mentioned in the body as of this point, so I would specify that this is consumption of alcohol
  • "which is poisonous: symptoms of methanol toxicity also include central nervous system depression" - I would drop the "also" - there's no other symptoms that the central nervous system depression is being listed in addition to.
  • "By the end of the next day, a total of 57 people were hospitalized and 49 were dead" - I think "had been hospitalized" would be better based on the source, as the source does not state that all were in the hospital simultaneously. This phrasing also better leaves open the possiblity that some of those who had been hospitalized had passed on
  • "According to state-owned media, Irkutsk's government gave 13,325 rubles to families of the dead to pay for funerals (about US$199 in 2016)" - is this figure per family, or a total split across all of the families?

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 22:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate the time spent on this, Hog Farm! I've addressed all of your comments along the lines you suggested. To the last point, that sum was given to various families; it was not the sum total of compensation that was then divided among them all. I've added the word "individual" to "individual families of the dead", if that works for you. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC
Lead
  • "fraudulent surrogate alcohol": is "fraudulent" the right word? Often surrogate alcohol is used as an adulterant (and is therefore, by definition, fraudulent). It may be more correct to say "toxic" instead here?
    • I've wrestled with that particular word. The surrogate alcohol was a legitimate and technically legal product, but it was being used in supposedly unintended ways, and this particular batch was made with methanol for reasons that secondary sources don't name (other than it doesn't seem to have been a mistake, as they deliberately acquired the methanol). Fraudulent seemed to be a middle ground amid that uncertainty. Using "toxic" there makes it sound a bit mass suicide-y to me... Thoughts?
Background
Symptoms
Incident
  • "Because a number of residents": best to swap this out for 'numerous' or 'several': at some point someone will replace it and say that zero is a number. (I'm not entirely convinced on their arguments as it's clear from the context, but you may as well future proof if possible)
    • Done.
  • "Irkutsk authorities resorted to looking for deceased individuals on their properties": I'm not sure "resorted to" is entirely right (it has a touch of editorialising to it too). Maybe "Irkutsk authorities searched for deceased individuals at their properties". I'm intrigued to know how they knew which properties the dead were at, or was it the case that they did door-to-door enquiries at every property?
    • I don't know if it was every property, but they at least wouldn't have had to check every property in the city as the poisonings were mostly confined to a specific neighborhood. The source does say that they were visiting people's apartments and another source added that they were checking places frequented by homeless individuals. I've copyedited this line.
Aftermath
  • "(equivalent to about one pint, and US$3.06 in 2016)": This reads a little oddly: maybe "(equivalent to US$3.06 for about one pint in 2016)"?
    • Fixed and thanks. Obvious answer for a parenthetical that I stared at and gave up trying to make sound better.
Notes
  • "The company head had themselves acquired the methanol illegally": -> "The company head had acquired the methanol illegally"

I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • Four paragraphs in the lead is too many, see MOS:LEADLENGTH. Suggest running the last three paragraphs together. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello Gog the Mild! The lead's paragraphs are structured so that there's a statement of significance, background info, incident info, and aftermath info. Running them together would lose those distinctions. In addition, at 177 words the lead's length is shorter than what MOS:LEADLENGTH recommends for featured articles. Given that, I'd prefer to keep the lead at four paragraphs but can find a solution if you feel strongly. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see that structuring, and I have no issue with either the length or the content. (MOS:LEADLENGTH doesn't make any recommendations re FA lead lengths; it notes an observation.) But 177 words split up into four paragraphs unnecessarily breaks up the flow, IMO. This is not helped by MOS:LEADLENGTH currently being under discussion, with changes to the MOS being made and unmade. Nevertheless, I would be unhappy with 177 words being broken into more than two paragraphs. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Fair enough. BorgQueen has been kind enough to make the change! Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I kinda wonder about the reliability of this journal. It has little non-Russian citations and seems to have been founded pretty recently. Probably because of the 2022 war, the Russian researcher sphere has been shut out of western academica. Have the editors and the journal some reputation? Komsomolskaya Pravda can probably be linked, for once this is a case where a questionable source can probably be included even in a FA, but I think the use in #20 (for the percentage) is inappropriate. What makes https://www.irk.ru/news/articles/20161219/poisoning/ a reliable source? Source formatting seems largely consistent, keeping in mind that there is more than one kind of source being used here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for the comments! I'll take those on in order.
  • Baikal Medical Journal: This particular journal was known as the Siberian Medical Journal (Irkutsk) in 2017, when the article used here was published. It claims a legacy that dates back to the 1920s, and its direct history dates to the mid-90s. It looks to have had an editorial board composed of regional academicians and accepted articles from various countries around the world. However, the journal was shuttered in 2019 and reformed in 2022 as a result of new legislation, probably the Russian fake news laws (see "In 2019, due to changes in legislation, the Siberian Medical Journal was forced to suspend its activities in its previous format. In 2022, after major transformations and changes in the composition of the founders, the journal was re-registered as the Baikal Medical Journal." [Google translated]). I would personally be skeptical of using this journal's post-2022 articles, as it sounds an awful lot like the existing property was usurped. For the places it's used in this Wikipedia article, primarily speaking to the history of a medical event located in the city the journal is published + at a time when it faced less political pressure, I believe that its use is appropriate.
  • Komsomolskaya Pravda: I'm open to removing the percentage, as it's a minor point.
  • Irk.ru is a local news source with a short masthead, a couple decades of publishing history, and what appears to have an established readership. I've thought of it as akin to a local US newspaper or US television station's news activities. Per WP:RSCONTEXT, I used it in the article only to source a line that specifically refers to when "local press reports" (my emphasis) were published about the poisoning. Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, OK. Percentage needs a better source if it's to stay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not writing clearer, but I removed the percentage right after replying! Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2016_Irkutsk_mass_methanol_poisoning/archive1&oldid=1247362386"