Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:January 2025 Richmond water crisis


Edit conflict

@JohnSon12a, looks like we're having edit conflicts. I will draft some material here, I think. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Yeah, that's fair. I'll let you take over for right now so we don't. JohnSon12a (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mayor Avula reported that workers were in the basement trying to pump the water out. As of 9:39 on Monday, power had been restored. The surrounding counties of Henrico and Chesterfield chose to disconnect themselves from the plant. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Mayor Avula reported that workers were in the basement, trying to pump water out. As of 9:39 on Monday, power had been restored. The surrounding counties of Henrico and Chesterfield chose to disconnect themselves from the plant, in order to help preserve water for the city. For the next several hours, crews focused on getting the plant's computer and mechanical systems back in operation. Water consumption increased and the city's reservoir dropped noticeably. Some city residents began to notice major issues with water pressure. City officials chose to not issue a boil water advisory at this time because they hoped that it would not be necessary. At 4:26 PM on Monday, the city announced an immediate boil water advisory, which had not happened in the city since Hurricane Isabel in 2003. City residents were also asked to try and conserve as much water as possible. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

@JohnSon12a Going to add ur image as an infobox.JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 02:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) JohnSon12a (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Warm salutations! Thank you for creating the article! May you and your family have a blessed day today!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Bunnypranav talk 13:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Kind of current; I don't know how this process really works, but would love to see this on the Main Page while it is still relevant!
Created by JuxtaposedJacob (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 07:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • New article, more than long enough, decently sourced (though there's a heavy reliance on primary sources evident, not a major issue), hook cited and no image copyright issues. I do have one major issue: Earwig detects multiple pretty sizable copyvios. There's two over 40% confidence and going further down I see identical attributions to the sources (while there is an argument for keeping quotes, copyvios can occur if you take the attribution before the quote directly from the source, rather than just the quote itself). Also, the hook isn't too interesting, honestly; I'd propose an alt similar to "...that a blizzard across the United States caused a major water crisis in Richmond, Virginia?" or some variant (let me know what you think of that); "major impacts" happen all the time and being non-specific hurts this one. I advise that you check WP:EARWIG and go and root out the copyright violations, and ping me when that's done. Departure– (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @User:Departure– I like your new hook much better. I have edited the page a little bit to remove some of the copyvios (I should have rephrased a bit more when writing the article, which is not normally a problem for me), but in my opinion, at this point, some of it is unavoidable. If you or someone else wishes to edit the page further to remove the copyvios, I would love that (totally not a requirement), but right now I don't have the energy to come up with new, creative ways to say "Tuckahoe Area Library" and "bottled water." All this to say that I am willing to withdraw the nomination if the page is still not acceptable. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 05:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Using simple phrases is by no means a copyvio. I've had experience with this, long names such as "National Weather Service Chicago, Illinois" show up as major points towards a copyvio when they're just the name of the entity. I'll take a look at it again in a minute. Departure– (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • @JuxtaposedJacob: still multiple sources over 40% on Earwig, and some at 30% appear to be direct quotations of non-quoted material from the sources. You can use this link to Earwig to root out copyvios - anything with too-close paraphrasing of anything but a quote from an official isn't going to fly. Also, I should state now that DYK typically takes 2 to 3 weeks from an article getting nominated to appearing on the main page - by then, the water crisis in Richmond is likely to be resolved. Other than copyvio concerns, everything seems sourced and no problems with the hook. Departure– (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you | Edit summaries

Hello all,

As I was writing this page, I both felt obliged to be speedy and used voice-to-text for the first time on Wikipedia, which means that I needed help in fixing typos, misspellings, and things of that nature. I appreciate all who assisted with that.

Additionally, for anyone looking through page history, my edit summaries were somewhat uninformative, for which I apologize.

Good night, everyone! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 05:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date clarification

It's probably best to change instances of a mentioned day (eg Monday) to a specific date (like January 6 2024). Sarsenet (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do (in a few hours) JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 13:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: Diff JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 04:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags

Hello @AirshipJungleman29,

I noticed that you added two maintenance tags about tenses and being overly detailed. To respond to the latter, I will remove the mentions of the specific sites for water distribution, etc., and any addresses if I hadn't yet removed them. However, would you mind letting me know any other suggestions you have on this matter?

Further, I thought that I had fixed the tense issues last week, but I will check again, because I certainly may have missed a few.

Thanks so much! Have a good day!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 03:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just did this (diff); more could probably stand to be removed, but I am biased as I wrote the article. Specific suggestions would be appreciated on perhaps trimming the article down a bit more.
JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 03:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, among other things: nearly all the quotes in the article are unnecessary, and the article includes massive amounts of details on very unimportant matters: a list of YMCA's, schools extending academic timeframes (the source for that failed verification, btw), and similar stuff. Some of this stuff, like "Henrico residents do not need to boil their water for cleaning or showering purposes", should never have been included in the first place, but others were relevant at the time but not with hindsight. Hope that helps, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions; I have incorporated them into the article as much as possible. I do think it looks much better now, and I appreciate your remarks.
Am I free to remove the over-specificity template from the top, or do you feel that additional changes are needed?
Have a good night! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 04:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also @AirshipJungleman29, what do you mean when you said "source failed verification?" Does that just mean that the reader didn't see the information in the source that was stated in the article and cited to the source?
Here is the quote from the source, btw: "RPS has modified their calendar to make up for instructional time lost last week and avoid extending the school year into June. January 15 and February 18, which were previously planning and professional development days, will now be regular school days."
Thanks so much! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 04:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been two days, I am going to remove the tags myself. As I edit the article, I will make sure to check for additional mistakes. Let me know about any additional desired changes.
JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 07:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FOIA request submitted

Hello,

Just wanted to let everyone know that I submitted a FOIA request for the EPA audit, in case you were wondering why it wasn't included in the External Links section.

Thanks,

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 08:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive Detail tag

Hello @Bernanke's Crossbow,

I noticed that you tagged the article for excessive detail; would you mind letting me know what you thought could be cut down?

Thanks so much!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 05:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Obligatory caveat: I haven't read most of the article (I bounced off of it because of the excessive detail), and if I could pithily identify what to cut I would have made the cuts myself. It's possible that what's going on is not excessive detail, per se, but a failure to identify broader conclusions from the data. Much of the text reads as a close paraphrase.
For example, consider the "Background > Richmond" section (selected just because it comes first in the article).

On a typical winter day, the water plant on Douglasdale Road produces 45 million gallons per day, and the city reservoir is typically at about 18 feet; the reservoir is located near Byrd Park. The water system is very aged, according to Dwayne Roadcap, director of the ODW. According to him, it is very obvious that one portion was built in 1924, and the other in 1950. The Richmond Department of Public Utilities, which is responsible for the water system, was already involved in customer service and billing issues before the outage. Before the crisis, it did not regularly participate in tabletop planning scenarios, except for participating sometimes with the fire department. DPU emergency plans were being updated every 5 years before the crisis. The maximum fill level of the city reservoir is 18 feet. The part that failed on January 6 had not been replaced in two decades, and the city, starting in 2016, had put out three solicitations for bids to upgrade it.

  • The initial Douglasdale plant discussion at least needs better organization, and I can spot a few details to cut.
    • You mention the reservoir level being 18 ft twice! It might be better to say, "the city reservoir is typically[cite] filled to its maximum level, 18 ft.[cite]."
    • I think your broader point is that the RDPU has struggled to maintain organizational requirements for several years, but, if so, then the article should state that explicitly rather than insinuating it. Separately, why do you mention that DPU emergency plans were updated on a 5 year cadence? Is that slow? ...industry standard? ...exceptionally frequent (probably not)?
    • The explicit citation to Roadcap also bothers me. IMHO mentioning a source draws undue attention to it unless there is a genuine dispute about the claims.

A 2022 report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uncovered problems with Richmond's water distribution system. Their visit to the plant was announced about a month beforehand, and they have visited along with ODW. The report showed multiple issues, like vegetation growing in a raw water channel line; cracked concrete at plant #2, which allowed debris into a water filter; and multiple instances of corrosion. The Byrd Park reservoir roof also had leaks and other issues that had to be addressed. Additionally, multiple filters were aged and cracked, inspections were irregular, and there was limited preventative and corrective maintenance. The Richmond Department of Public Utilities had responded to the report on January 3, two days before the plant's failure. CBS 6 News pointed out that the city's response was delayed by roughly 2 years, but a Department of Public Utilities spokesperson said that they weren't presented with the findings until August 2024. The response, by Richmond Department of Public Utilities Director April Bingham, an appointee of Mayor Levar Stoney, laid out corrective measures; it also said that redundancy was a key feature of their system and allowed the system to continue operating even in the case of certain components failing. Their response noted that they would address cracked and corroded equipment with refurbishment and a larger capital improvement project; the department also noted that its emergency response plan was outdated and that a new plan would be completed in early 2025. The emergency response plan had not been updated since 2017.

  • The main problem with the EPA report discussion are the excessive details, although I think perhaps an inline wikilink to normalization of deviance wouldn't go amiss.
    • Do we care that the visit was announced beforehand?
    • Did all of the issues detailed in the report directly affect the course of the crisis? If not, why do we need to know about them?
    • I think our readers can do the math to notice the 2-year interval between the report and the response; if you disagree, a simpler phrasing might be "Two years later (and 2 days before the plant's failure), the Richmond Department of Public Utilities finally developed a plan to resolve those deficiencies."

Political strategist Paul Goldman, who, among other accomplishments, led the referendum for an elected mayor of Richmond due to corruption and other issues in the city, argues in an editorial for RVAMag that Richmond city leaders cut back on infrastructure spending in the 1980s, as city revenues decreased. A return to increased spending was promised, but never realized, by many in the following decades. Although Douglas Wilder tried to modernize the city's infrastructure, political battles with Bill Pantele, then-President of City Council, got in the way. He argues that Mayor Dwight Jones and Levar Stoney, in pursuit of higher office and political contributions, played the race card to the city's detriment, especially the detriment of its infrastructure; and that Stoney's sports arena project was the wrong thing on which to focus.

  • Summarizing so indiscriminately from Goldman's editorial runs the risk of WP:UNDUE or WP:COATRACK.
    • Do we need to know not only that Goldman is a strategist, but that he led a referendum [campaign, I assume?] and that the referendum was caused by purported corruption? What's wrong with just saying "According to local political strategist Paul Goldman, Richmond had cut infrastructure spending in the 1980s to counterbalance decreased tax revenues."
    • Do we care about the play-by-plays in the '90s? I wouldn't bother mentioning Wilder and Pantele, and the phrase "in pursuit of higher office and political contributions" is entirely unecessary editorializing.

There are many natural springs in the city, at least 12 of which have been documented, which formerly provided drinkable water for the surrounding neighborhoods. The springs, except Wayside Spring, which is still open, have all been closed for various reasons. One spring is located under the Byrd Theatre, while two more are located on Capitol Square, feeding fountains there. Some of the spring closures were attributable to E. coli and other contaminants. Many are located in public parks owned by the city. Before their closure, city residents were able to use them as a source of water if the city cut off their water. For example, the Fonticello Spring had been a gathering place and source of water for Native American groups since pre-colonization. In the 1800s, the land was purchased by the Taylor family, who bottled the water and sold it under the "Fonticello Bottling Company" brand; they reported that it had healing properties. In the 1920s, it was turned into a public park with the assistance of Councilmember Carter Jones; people soon turned it into a hub of community activity, gathering weekly to collect water and/or connect with others. In the mid-to-late 1900s, the spring continued to serve as a community hub. In the 1980s, the spring was redesigned, but issues with removing the 200-pound metal drain screens led to leaves often blocking the drain and often leading to overflows. The spring was permanently closed to the public around 2013 or 2014. Additionally, the state used to fund a water-testing program for the springs, but that was defunded, and the city was unable or unwilling to test the water themselves and incur the related costs. The government posted signs saying that the water was unsafe, but it still may have been perfectly safe. However, Roadcap says that testing in the early 1980s that identified coliforms, bacteria not harmful in and of themselves but considered by the EPA to be good indicators of bacteria that can cause gastrointestinal illnesses, may have lead the city to remove spring access. He stated that much expenditure would have been required to keep the spring water safe for consumption.

  • WP is not a guide to help residents find water to drink, and the history of Public water delivery in the Richmond, VA metropolitan area can go in that article instead (if it belongs on WP at all).
    • We don't need to know that one spring is under the Byrd and two more on Capitol Square.
    • We also don't need to hear the detailed history of Fonticello.
I hope this gives a sense of why the article feels excessively detailed to me. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Douglasdale:
I reorganized this section to respond to your requests; it definitely needed it. Part of my larger problem was the speed at which I added information, which did hurt my ability to parse it correctly. I see your point about Roadcap and have accepted the suggestion, though because it is more of an opinion, I feel that it was better stating his name. The point about the 5-year thing was spot on, so I accepted that suggestion and added a source.
EPA:
The sources made a point about mentioning the dispute over the time interval. I have improved the summary of the issues. I think that the visit detail is important, especially given the seeming duplicity that has been exposed in recent reports.
Goldman:
This is a really good point. Although I would prefer to learn about his accomplishments in the article, there really is no point, given that he has an article of his own. I have also removed some of the more specific editorializing that is less provable.
Springs:
Also a really good point; I have accepted your suggestions here.
Rest assured that my recent edit was not the extent of my changes, and that I will continue to reorganize/summarize in the coming days as I get more time. My work will focus especially on the Aftermath/Investigations section.
Have a good day! Thanks for your suggestions! JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 03:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After-Action Report

A draft version of an After-Action report has been released by HNTB. I reached out to the person who prepared it and left a voice message hoping to see if they would release the final report with some type of Creative Commons license so we can host it. SDudley (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:January_2025_Richmond_water_crisis
✕
Bahnsport-Info

Kostenfrei
Ansehen