Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Senghenydd colliery disaster/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 [1].

Senghenydd colliery disaster edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Senghenydd colliery disaster was an underground methane explosion in 1913 that killed 339 miners. A terrible and horrible tragedy, it remains the UK's worst mining accident, and it devastated the small community of 6,000 that serviced the colliery. This article has been through a major re-write and a highly profitable and constructive PR, but further comments are welcomed from all-comers. – SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks to have further improved following a decent PR. Certainly looks a well-researched, credible article worthy of FA status. You've done well to compile it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Doc, particularly for your GAN comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Simon Burchell Reading through now, will comment as I go. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Simon, Many thanks for your comments. I've tweaked the firedamp info to make sure it's all in the first section. I've added the inflation information as a footnote. There has been some discussion in previous articles about the validity of the information (given it's never entirely correct or looks at comparable information), but a general rounded up guide is useful, I think and these are now available for those who want them. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the quick responses - almost ready to support this fine article - there's just a few more monetary conversions needed in the Aftermath section. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Simon: I think I've caught them all now. The only ones we can't do are the shillings and pence amounts, but I think people will realise that we are talking very small amounts in any year. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's great - good work on the article, I'm happy to support. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Simon - your commens are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – A grim read but worth the reading, and finely and soberly told. Well balanced (more than I'd manage to make it, I fear) and widely sourced. Meets the FA criteria in my view and I willingly support its candidacy. – Tim riley talk 12:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks, Tim: your PR comments were a great help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

  • Why include a location in FN86 but not FN104? FN27 but not FN110? Check for consistency
  • "WikiMedia Commons" -> "Wikimedia Commons". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria - much appreciated and all now consistent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up both maps
  • Le Petit Journal caption shouldn't end with a period
  • File:Sir_William_Lewis.jpeg: per the tag, "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was". Same with File:Rescuers_from_Rhymney,_who_assisted_at_the_Senghenydd_disaster,_1913.jpg
  • File:Courrières_1906_LeJ.jpg: per the tag, "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication"
  • File:Senghenydd_pit_disaster_18.jpg and others from the National Library: where are we getting CC0? The source link states "Copyright: The National Library of Wales". (The images would be PD-US anyway, but they should have the right tags). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nikkimaria. Many thanks for the review. I've amended as requested, except the final point: the postcard images were all uploaded by User:Jason.nlw, the Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Wales: it is they who have posted the images and released them online, which should be OK. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi both. Just to confirm, National Library of Wales agreed the release of these postcards as CCO following a thorough but unsuccessful search to identify the author and his death date. I am working with them to update copyright notices on their website, but this will take time. Hope that helps. Jason.nlw (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support weighed in at the peer review. Very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Wehwalt, your comments at PR were extremely helpful. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a few final suggestions:
  • "...and employed a fifth of its miners in the mid-nineteenth century.[2] That year..." – no year indicated.
  • "If the survivors are not rescued quickly..." As you are generalising here, this should perhaps be "If survivors from an explosion are not rescued quickly..." etc
  • "...to allow rescuers to descend.[30] The rescuers descended..." This seems somewhat repetitious.
  • In the "Senghenydd and the Universal Colliery" section I believe that the first sentence of the final paragraph should be the last sentence of the previous paragraph, as a new topic starts with "In 1906...". Likewise, the last two sentences, beginning "In 1913..." should form a brief separate paragraph, since they shift the subjecxt back to Senghenydd. Thus, "In 1913 the Senghenydd colliery was..." etc.
  • "Reginald McKenna, the Home Secretary, visited the colliery that day... " – again, "that day" needs to be specified
  • "to a disaster relief fund", or "to the disaster relief fund?
  • "a" I think: there were two funds, so I think this is right, but happy to hear any further comments. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the focus of attention would be on" gives off a bit of a clunk. Perhaps "priority wouild be given to"?
  • "100 long tons of debris" - surely the "long" is irrelevant here?
  • "some bodies remained unknown" – is "unknown" the best word to use?
  • I assume that the gallery captions are Benton's, and it might be as well to make this clear.
  • "of which 8 were 14 years old" → "of whom..."
  • "jury returned a verdict of accidental death" - probably "verdicts"?
  • "of all the theories put forward" is unnecessary verbiage
  • "firedamp or afterdamp could have been extracted from some sectors onto the blaze" – not completely clear. Does it mean "could have been extracted from other sectors of the mine into the blaze..."?

It is right that this sad event be remembered. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian. All done, bar one, which I'm happy to be nudged the other way on, should you think it appropriate. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, had my say at PR and it has improved very much since then. Well done indeed. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:12, 4 April 2016 (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/Senghenydd_colliery_disaster/archive1&oldid=1138471112"