Talk:2020 Hpakant jade mine disaster

Consistency

We have three articles about disasters in recent years, close to each other, each of which was caused by a landslide at/near a jade mine:

• Hpakant jade mine disaster (in 2015)
• 2019 Hpakant jade mine collapse
• 2020 Hpakant jade mine disaster

The format for each is different & the first one doesn't distinguish itself from the others. In addition, the title of the place is at Phakant. The article titles should match; which would be best? Jim Michael (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The 2019 accident is different in details and mechanics. The 2015 one and the 2020 one are similar. I am not sure we have Phakant in the right place, as every single media item I've seen is referring to it as Hpakant in terms of the current disaster. I suspect (based on reporting) that the 2020 disaster is larger than 2015, and they are certainly at parity (at the moment, the confirmed death toll for 2020 slightly exceeds 2015). I do think they both should have a normalized name, probably beginning with year.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The first one has had 2015 added to the beginning of its title.

Is there a reason for the 2019 one having collapse in its title rather than disaster? Did the other 2 not each involve a major collapse?

Is the settlement usually referred to as Hpakant? How about Phakant Township?

On Phakant, it says that there was a much more deadly disaster there in 2000. Jim Michael (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The alleged 2000 event needs much better sourcing, it is sourced to kachinnews.com (and the page doesn't exist anymore) and our own article says it was hushed up. The 2019 event was notable because so many people were buried alive (asleep in their quarters), but most of those buried survived, so it was a collapse but not a disaster (with 6 fatalities). As for Phakant/Hpakant it seems to be the same place but different spelling. I am unable to find a single media source referring to it as Phakant, everyone is using Hpakant, which suggests that the town page should be moved unless there is some Myanmar project specific thing going on here.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding 2000, CBS says the 2015 accident is regarded as the worst, so we possibly should remove that from Phakant.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle now says the 2020 event is the deadliest.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Eostrix: This might be interesting. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This looks like a discrepancy, or perhaps I've misunderstood something: "Myanmar's jade industry, worth US$30 billion per year....Myanmar is the largest supplier of jade in a trade worth of nearly US$790 million per year" Backep1 (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)backep1

• That's a good question. I've changed it to $790 million but all sources say that the $30–31 billion are unofficial numbers which are not in the stats of the government. But I also added a footnote which explains the numbers depending on their sources. I guess I've missed that $30 billion so I'll change that. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I modified the text so that both numbers are mentioned. The "official" estimates are junk here - many sources, e.g. NPR, CBC, CNN do not even bother to mention the "official" numbers, and only mention the independent estimates.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Deadliest accident

The lead says:

The disaster took place on 2 July 2020 and is the deadliest accident to date.

That is meaningless - many accidents of many kinds all over the World throughout history have been more deadly. We need to define the scope - e.g. deadliest mining acccident of all times in Myanmar/Burma? Deadliest accident in this particular mine? ...?--Nø (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Source: "the latest accident is considered the deadliest to hit the industry." Modified article text to: "and is the deadliest mining accident to date in Myanmar". @Nø: does this resolve the issue? --Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Certainly!--Nø (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2020 Hpakant jade mine disaster/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 09:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I think a two-para lead would suffice here, for the size of the article.

   Done

• "the Hpakant area" appears to be piped to a redirect back to Hpakant.

   Done, Hpakant was originally at Phakant, it was Talk:Hpakant#Requested move 3 July 2020 as the Hpakant is more prevalent.

• "The disaster took place on 2 July 2020" I would put the date in the opening sentence.

   Done

• "Myanmar's jade industry is worth US$790 million" as of when?

   Done, DW did not have a date for 790 and I couldn't find a different source (that wasn't a mirror/copy/copied-through of DW) quoting 790 in a search now - so replaced with 750 million for 2016-2017 from Reuters.

• "175-200" in infobox should be an en-dash, not a hyphen.

   Done

• "US$15–31 billion" that was 30 to 31 in the lead...

   Done (removed from lead per condensation above + monetary estimates are all over the place so replaced with 70%-90% of the world jade supply).

• "operators.[7]These" space after ref.

   Done

• "in a moonscape-like scene devoid of trees" this is a bit POV, is it attributable to someone?

 Done

• "[7][3]" order.

   Done

• "mine.[5]In 2019, fifty workers were buried in a mine collapse, resulting in the deaths of 2 rescue workers and 4 " space after ref, and fifty/two/four.

   Done

• "completing Environmental impact assessment and submitting Environmental management" no need to capitalise the E each time.

   Done

• Landslide section has several short paras, could merge up a little to two paras.

   Done

• "At 06:30 local time," what is the "local time" with respect to UTC?

   Done

• "people.[10][2] As of" ref order.

   Done

• "54 injured people" avoid starting sentences with numeral.

   Done

• "landslide.[15][14] While" ref order.

   Done

• "only 393 mm which is lower than the annual average of 475 mm suggesting" converts.

   Done

• 2,500$ -> $2,500 and I assume that's US?

   Done

• "greedy". Aung San Suu Kyi, then de-" overlinked.

   Done

• "The BBC News in" no need for The.

   Done

• Consistency for references, have accessdates/publications dates outside titles, include publishers outside titles etc.

  In progress....  Done, or at least improved quite a bit. The one inconsistency I was unable to resolve was the location of the publication date in some pieces. Cite News, as illustrated in Template:Cite news#Examples renders differently when there are named authors and when there is no named author (no byline, or byline of news agency), when there are authors it places the date after the last author. When there are no authors it places the date after the agency/work in the end.

• Ref 6 The Gulf Times should be italics.

   Done

• As should ref 11.

   Done

• Compare ref 8 and 13 for al Jazeera format.

   Done

That's all I have on a first read. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Mostly done, still working on the citations (saving page because I'm afraid my citation bot and citation tool tinkering might crash this browser session).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: can you take a second look? I think I've addressed most, if not all, of your concerns above.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)