Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moorgate tube crash/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2018 [1].

Moorgate tube crash edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Moorgate tube crash was a horrific crash on the London Underground in which 43 people died and 74 were injured. The train, at the height of rush hour, failed to stop at the platform, and continued at full speed into a dead-end tunnel, where it piled into a solid wall. The front three cars of the train were concertinaed into the size of two. It took 13 hours to free the casualties and a further four days to extract the last body. No technical problems were found, and driver-error was the conclusion of the subsequent investigation; no explanation has been established for the driver's action. This article has been through a complete re-write recently and a very constructive PR, with input from Tim riley, Redrose64, Brianboulton and DBaK. Any further comments would be most gratefully received. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Popcornduff edit

I just jumped in and did a quick copy edit of the lead, then realised who nominated this. Considering your history of not liking my copyediting I'll step back. Good luck with the nom - at first glance looks like a nice article. Popcornduff (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I kept reading just because it was interesting, and yep, it's a well-written piece. I did a copy-edit, mainly to remove a few unnecessary elements - for example "a deliberate act of suicide" can just become "suicide", because suicide is deliberate by definition - and few cases of dodgy punctuation, but these were minor changes and I'm hoping they will be uncontroversial.

I have only two quibbles:

  • There were two instances of "as at 2018". I've never seen this construction before, but that it appeared twice suggests it's not a typo of "as of 2018". I looked it up and I see it exists, but to my eyes it appears strange and possibly archaic. But whatever.
    "As at" is correct in British English - more correct than "as of", which originated in AmEng, although it is working its way into the language here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tube" is capitalised everywhere but the article title. Why the inconsistency?
    It probably shouldn't be - I'll swap them over shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, these are small fry. Happy to Support on prose. Nice job. Popcornduff (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from SN54129 edit

Taking this bit by bit. Just a little clarification perhaps. Not a prose an me. as you might have noticed :)

  • Just got to the mention of CLSG, which—pardon—seems to come out of no-where somewhat. Suggest clarifying why pupils would be on that particular train "normally"? (I.e., that Moorgate's 5" walk away so effectively the local station). People reading who don't know London, then won't have to navigate away from your article to Gmaps to find out!
  • Getting a bit ahead of myself, but I see there's no further mention of Harris. Speaking as an ex-Guard, I know that (not withstanding missing his first turn—how did Newson leave DP? A spare turn cover?) leaving one's DCP and strolling through the train to collect newspapers is pretty poor. Surprised, in fact, that subsequent report/s investigation/s never mentioned him again; didn't they?
  • "... sitting upright and facing forward wearing his hat": Intended to indicate that he wasn't in a state of panic? But—it might be just me—but it seems to read as if the fact of him him wearing his hat was of major significance (I mean, it was in that otherwise he would have been in serious breech of the company's dress code. But I don't suppose that was at the forefront of his mind by then!). What are you getting at, exactly, by mentioning his hat? (In comparison, I agree that "sitting upright" makes it immediately clear that he wasn't in any way distracted).
Bacon half a mo. —SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers SN1233545626! I'll get round to these as soon as I can, but they're all good points. I'll check the sources on the hat point, but I think it was just what people reported at the time as being slightly incongruous: I'll see if there is a deeper point to it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some paragraphs (on pp. 8-9) in McNaughton's report which cover the recollections of eyewitnesses on the platform, some of these describe the driver and mention his hat/cap. I expect that McNaughton included these on the Sherlock Holmes principle that every fact, no matter how minor, can be relevant. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just so Redrose64. That's doubtless McNaughton's reason for inclusion; our readers won't know that though, so—the point is—why are we mentioning it? PS: Thanks for implying that I would suggest SchroCat would incude unsourced material! A calumny sir. Take care! —SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added to this that witnesses said he looked neatly dressed too. The implication is that he wasn't panicking, or upset, but appeared entirely normal, although the report doesn't specifically draw any inference from the words used. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for these, SN54129; if you have any further points, I'd be delighted to address them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that those were my main points, all very clear now, thanks! Happy to support this promotion, in my small way (and incidentally of course an opportunity to show that I now know how to spell comments  :) —great article, even if it did give me flashbacks. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 18:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers SN54129, I'm very much obliged to you! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley edit

I was one of the peer reviewers, and I'm afraid I have funked a thorough rereading: I've reread most of this article thoroughly but only skim-read the most harrowing sections. But I am nonetheless confident in supporting. My few comments at PR were dealt with, and all I can spot now is in the Memorials section, where the first sentence is, in theory, ambiguous and could do with turning about: "A memorial in the south-west corner of Finsbury Square, 410 metres (450 yd) north of Moorgate station, lists those who died". I also question the preposition in the caption "on Finsbury Square". I am ashamed to offer such nitpicks in the context of this tragic article, and I congratulate SchroCat on his thoroughness, which cannot have been easy in the circumstances. Tim riley talk 18:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim. I'll address your points shortly. Thanks very much for your input at the PR too - it was most helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Tim - I'm much obliged for your comments here and at PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Reywas92 edit

  • This article twice says "worst peacetime accident on the London Underground"; it should be clarified that it is the worst rail accident ever and what is implied by the use of "peacetime" as a qualifier. While List_of_London_Underground_accidents#World_War_II lists three incidents with more deaths, none were connected to the trains themselves like this one. "Accident" is suggestive of a train crash in this context and would not include a bombing, and Bethnel Green occurred before it opened as part of the Underground. London Underground also uses the same phrase that should be made more clear. Reywas92Talk 19:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm away for the weekend, so I'll check the source when I'm back, but to the best of my recollection it's a reflection of the reliable sources. – SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but it shouldn't be written that way without better context for someone wondering what the worst is, including wartime, especially since they aren't in the same category. The source in the main LU article does say "worst ever" though. Reywas92Talk 07:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • I remember the crash as I was working in an office opposite the station at the time. A boy in an office down the corridor came in on that line, and his parents kept phoning to check whether he had arrived, but it was finally confirmed that he had been killed.
  • "was on a gradient of 1 in 150 for 196 metres" Uphill or downhill?
  • "As the exit to platform 9 was next to the overrun tunnel, the first two carriages were more popular with commuters" Why is this relevant? I thought passengers were mainly at the front because that was where the exit to the street was, as is shown in the lead photo.
  • "The brakes were not applied and the dead man's handle was still depressed when the train entered the overrun tunnel" I remember this as a major point of discussion at the time and I think it is worth mentioning in the lead.
  • "he stated that he believed the crash was due to suicide by Newson" Did he give any evidence for this? The article is all the other way.
    • I've not seen the programme unfortunately. I think that as there are several possible theories, (with none being in 'the lead'), I think it's just his personal opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks Dudley, and I'm much obliged to you. Aside from the final point where I've commented, all your other comments were dealt with here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Dudley - I'm much obliged! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

The only format point I could find to take issue with is the italicisation of certain non-print sources, notably BBC and Measuringworth. These should be de-italicised. Otherwise, all looks in good order, links working, and sources of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Brian - These have now been tweaked. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Interesting article on an incident I was not aware of.
  • "was caused by Leslie Newson, the 56-year-old tube driver." I would cut "tube".
  • "It took thirteen hours to remove the casualties from the wreckage, many of whom had to be cut free" I might change "casualties" to "injured" since obviously the dead are not included.
  • I might split the third paragraph of "Crash" before "On arrival at Moorgate".
  • Are there no accounts of the experiences of the passengers that might be included? Surely such things would have been reported at the time. It just seems to me that more could be said on the human tragedy of this event.
  • "undertook a brief inspection of the site they saw they were dealing with a serious event" I think this should be pithier. Allowing for engvar, perhaps something like "once they saw what they were dealign with". I'd like to see more urgency in the discussion of events and words should be saved wherever possible. For example, Boots the Chemists could simply be "Boots".
  • "One of the doctors from Barts later described the scene as they worked in the tunnel:" I would cut all after "scene" though retaining the colon.
  • "By 12:00 pm " Should this be 12:00 noon?
  • What became of the guard? If he abandoned the emergency brake, was there culpability on his part? Was he allowed to continue with the Underground?
  • Why are the various safety measures bolded?
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Wehwalt. All done except two three: the bolding question (commented on), and the point on Guard Harris, which Serial Number 54129 has also raised. I'll add what I can, but there is little known about him after the report. I'll also add some comments from the passengers too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Wehwalt, I've added a little extra from the passengers, as well as concluding on the other points you raised. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Very little to add to what I said at peer review, or to the additional points raised here by other editors. just one very minor point from the first paragraph. "...the enquiry by Department of the Environment concluded that the accident was caused by Leslie Newson, the 56-year-old driver." That is so, but in the bald terms stated here, the inference is that he caused it deliberately. The report says that there is insufficient evidence to indicate whether the action was deliberate or medically induced. So I'd soften slightly by saying the accident "was caused by the actions of Leslie Newsom". Otherwise, a harrowing story, told with the right balance of detachment and empathy. Brianboulton (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Brian, I've tweaked appropriately. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1 edit

An immaculately written and detailed article on a very tragic event. Some few thoughts/comments below but nothing to stand in the way of support.

Lead and later
  • Lead and later: Public inquiry or enquiry - Appreciate I am skating on very thin ice!, and that either is acceptable, but isn't inquiry more usual in the content of a public inquiry? You use inquiry in the sub-heading later.
    Yes, see paragraph 1 of McNaughton's report - "the result of my Inquiry into the serious accident that occurred to a passenger train". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With no services running into the adjoining platform" - into sounds a bit odd, but I'm not sure onto is any better?
    Into is correct British English. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two memorials to those who died were unveiled in the vicinity of the station, one in July 2013 and one in February 2014" - it's explained later, but on first encountering it in the lead, I was immediately struck by the length of time, nearly 40 years, between the crash and the erection of the memorials. Perhaps, "After a long campaign by relatives of the dead, two memorials were unveiled..."?
Crash
  • The concluding paragraph ends with, "It was the worst peacetime accident on the Underground." The lead says it is considered the worst, i.e. ever. I wonder if the sentence could be tweaked to something like, "It was, and remains, the worst peacetime accident on the Underground."
Rescue
  • "although the hospital were still unaware of the scale of the problem" - obviously not the intention but, to me, "problem" is inadequate. Disaster, catastrophe? And should it be "hospital was" or "hospital staff were..."?
Investigation and inquiry
  • "McNaughton observed that because of the guard Harris's lack of experience, could not have taken any action to stop the accident from happening, although he thought the young man "displayed himself as idle and undisciplined"." Is there a missing "he" here, i.e. "lack of experience, he could not have..."?
  • "whether it was the result of suddenly arising..." Just checking the absence of an "a", as in "a suddenly arising...." isn't a typo.
Moorgate protection
  • "to prevent a train accelerating when entering the platform, although the value of these resistors" - just checking this shouldn't be valve, or valves, rather than "value". Science isn't my strongest suit!
    No, resistors have a property known as "resistance", measured in ohms; and to avoid the tautology "the resistance of these resistors", we normally write "the value of these resistors". Check out how often the word "value" occurs in our article Resistor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks RR. Not being of scientific mind either I'd changed the term to something else, but given the explanation, I'll put it back. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Memorials
  • As per my comment in the lead, I wondering if it is worth noting that the campaign for a memorial was a long one.
Beautifully written, and moving. Wholly deserving of FA and sorry I missed the PR. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks KJP. Your comments all taken on board and the relevant tweaks made in this edit. Cheers for your thoughts - much appreciated, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support from Jim As a former Londoner I remember this as well as Yvonne Fletcher. Just one quibble, which may be just me getting it wrong. You say in line 1 London Underground's Northern City Line; I wonder if it should be clearer that although that was correct at the time, the NCL would soon become part of the national rail network? Your call, won't affect my support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

This was one of the first international news stories I remember as a kid so I took great interest in my regular pre-promotion walkthrough and light copyedit. I have one query that won't delay promotion... Who is David Paul? Appears twice mentioned but no linked article, so can you mention occupation for context? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2018 (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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Moorgate_tube_crash/archive1&oldid=1138467162"