Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Senghenydd colliery disaster/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Senghenydd colliery disaster edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review


The Senghenydd colliery disaster was a horrible incident: an underground methane explosion that killed 339 miners either directly, or from the subsequent fire, or from the lack of oxygen that had been consumed by the fire. It is the UK's worst mining accident and it devastated the small community. A future FAC is hoped for, unless reviewers think otherwise. Any and all constructive comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments edit

Horrible incident indeed; this is the first part of my review. I hope to do the rest on Friday or Saturday. Most of my comments are the usual presentation points, suggestions for minor rephrasings, etc. I am sure that your research is impeccable.

Lead
  • "Many of the collieries in the field were known for their seams high in trapped gasses—firedamp, an explosive gas consisting of methane and hydrogen—and thus prone to explosions." This can be simplified: "Many of the collieries in the field contained seams with high quantities of firedamp, an explosive gas consisting of methane and hydrogen, and were thus prone to explosions".
  • Second para: "there were" → "there had been", and later "which would have" → "which could have"
  • Punc: suggest delete comma after "brunt of the explosion", and replace the comma after "afterdamp" with an mdash.
  • "before a method of controlling the problem was effected" - this seems somewhat verbose. Suggest "before the situation was under control".
  • "The official criticism led to legal charges being made against Edward Shaw..." Replace "The official criticism" with "This..."; instead of "legal charges", indicate what the charges were, e.g. "charges of negligence"; delete "being made".
  • "pithead" is a single word
Growth of the Welsh coal industry
  • "this rose to 30,000 in 1864 and 250,000 in 1913". The rises were over periods of time, thus: "this had risen to 30,000 by 1864, and to 250,000 by 1913"
  • "increased by 320,000" – is it possible to give the base figures, "from x to y"?
  • Finally got back to the source: the X and y figures are not there, unfortunately. – SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By what measure or standard is 8.5m long tons in 1854 being described as "already-high"? I'm dubious about that hyphen, too.
  • I've removed the qualifying part of the sentence and just left the "up from 8.5 million long tons in 1854" in place. – SchroCat (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "known for their seams high in trapped gasses"; I queried this wording in the lead, and feel it should be reworded here.
  • Non-Brits (and some of them, too) won't understand what you mean by "the principality". Why not just say "Wales"?
Senghenydd and the Universal Colliery
  • First sentence is overcomplex and would run more smoothly as two: "Senghenydd—Senghennydd in Welsh—is situated at the northern end of the Aber Valley, approximately four miles (6.4 km) north-west of Caerphilly. When geological surveys for coal beganin 1890 it was a farming hamlet of around 100 people".
  • mineshaft is one word
  • "Universal was owned and developed by William Lewis and the first coal was extracted in 1896". Unrelated information shouldn't be conjoined by "and". I'd find a way of rewording this, to avoid very short sentences.
  • "the downcast Lancaster and the upcast York": "downcast" and "upcast" are mining jargon, need explaining. Presumably "Lancaster" and "York" were the names of the shafts – this should be clarified.
  • We define them fully in the footnote linked at the end. Would you prefer this to be re-worked into the main text? – SchroCat (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The price of coal slumped in the late 1890s and low wages caused industrial unrest and, in 1898, a strike at many collieries;" Two "ands", needs tweaking
  • "The dust, which was spread by the method coal was being loaded onto the underground trucks, exacerbated a small explosion and continued it throughout the mine workings". Not clear what is meant here. The best I can try is this: "The method used to load coal onto the underground trucks created clouds of dust, which aggravated a small explosion in the mine and created a chain reaction of explosions throughout the workings". Is this what is meant?

Rest to follow Brianboulton (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The rest of my comments:

14 October 1913
  • "time-consuming" is a hyphenated term, but as it'sin a quote I haven't adjusted it
  • It's not in the source, but as we allowed a modicum of interference with punctation and errors, I've added one – SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without wishing to be morbid, I find it hard to accept that the "explosion" decapitated the winder. More likely it was part of the destroyed winding equipment that did for him? Perhaps replace "decapitated" with "killed"
  • "in swift attendance" doesn't make sense when you think about it; maybe "were quickly on the scene"?
  • "Lieven accounts" → "Leiven recounts"
  • "A journalist for The Times considered..." For or from? And "considered" isn't the best verb to use. Why not just "wrote"?
Rescue, fire-fighting and recovery
  • "Work continued throughout the night and into the following day..." As this is a new section, the opening sentence should be date-related, e.g. "Work continued throughout the night of 15 October and into the following day"
  • "Many of the firefighters wrote what they thought could be their last letters home, and many made wills before they went down to go to work". Needs reorganising, e.g. "Before descending the mine many of the firefighters wrote what they thought might be their last letters home, and some made their wills".
  • You have made a republican of me. A pair of royal nonentities think they're doing their bit by charging the public to view their wedding bling and handing the proceeds over. What a sacrifice they made. Off with their heads, I say. Both of them.
  • Brace was presumably the local MP but perhaps this should be clarified
  • "coroner's inquests" requires an apostrophe
  • "walls of sandbags, turf and sand, approximately 18 feet (5.5 metres) deep and 17 feet (15.5 metres) up to the tunnel's roof...2 Something is amiss with the second conversion. I'm surprised by the height of the tunnel; 17 feet is more than a London Underground railway station.
  • I was too, although I checked the source which seems quite certain. The conversion error has been corrected now. – SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "constrained" → "contained"
  • "another fall had been more than 300 feet (91.5 metres) long and 30 to 40 feet (10–12 metres) high" I'm astonished: a fall of 40 fwwt within a mine working. This suggthr ests a huge underground cavern rather than a mine tunnel – am I misunderstanding something?
  • Not at all. Some of these were huge falls which had to be cleared, mthe sources tell us. – SchroCat (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many bodies were unidentifiable from the physical remains" – surely the bodies were the physical remains, so "from the physical remains" can be deleted. You could say "Many victims...", to reduce the repetition of "bodies" in the latter part of this paragraph
  • "of which 33 were still unaccounted for" – "of whom", surely
Aftermath
  • "The historian John H Brown, in his examination of the disaster, considers that the evidence that came from the inquest and inquiry overlap considerably, although the inquiry was more in-depth and technical in nature." Does this sentence add anything useful or interesting? Or should we save space here?
  • "Although Shaw's actions were described as Lieven as those that "gained him a degree of respect from the local mining community which remained over the years; they probably also cost the lives of scores of miners.". This extract confuses me. "Although" seems to be in the wrong place; "described as Lieven as" is presumably a misprint, and your text and Lieven's quote seem to have got entangled. But above all, I've read nothing in the article that suggests that any actions of Shaw "probably also cost the lives of scores of miners", as Lievens so carefully puts it. Some sorting out, and greater clarity needed.
  • Assuming the image on the left is the one at Nant-y-parc Primary School, it can hardly be described as a "replica" of the colliery's winding gear. A "depiction" or "representation", perhaps.
  • No, the image is of the later monument: I've tweaked the caption to clarify. – SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sad story, well told. I'll check out your earlier reponses; if I don't comment further assume all is well. Brianboulton (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian: your comments are, as always, spot on the money. Many, many thanks – SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J3Mrs edit

  • The colliery owner at the time of the explosion was Lewis Merthyr Consolidated Collieries Ltd (Redmayne P3) and by the way coalowner is a perfectly valid term he even started a coal owners' association.[1]
  • "This geological factor resulted in a higher-than-average proportion of accidents" is not true, the geology didn't cause the accidents but the way the collieries were operated, bad practice and lax management, contraband being brought down the pit, candles, faulty lamps etc., did.
  • "and 48 per cent of all UK mining deaths occurred in Wales" is a non sequitur. If you are going to quote figures like 48% you have to say when and under what circumstances because I think that overall Lancashire had the largest number of mining deaths. Needs rewording and the figure explaining.
  • Many thanks. Two of the three have been covered: I'll sort the 48% a little more shortly, although it's partly done. – SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you may have covered tis later in the section but "collieries in the region mined a fifth of all coal produced in the UK, and employed a fifth of its miners" needs dating as the figures changed over time. J3Mrs (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've re-ordered this source from my local library for them to get out of store once again: hopefully it'll be clarified in a day or two – SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section heading "Growth of the Welsh coal industry" is a bit misleading as the second paragraph deals with explosions, gases and stuff. Maybe it is just "Background"?
  • I've trimmed it to "Welsh coal industry", as that's what the main thrust is about. Even though the subject takes in a wider topic, it is still focussed on the Welsh industry. - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cliftonian thoughts edit

I've already had a brief look at this and made a few minor tweaks; I'll have a fresh read through and note any thoughts I have, coming back to the lead at the end.

Background
  • "John Benson, in his history British Coalminers in the Nineteenth Century, put the figure at 133,000." When was Benson writing this and what year did he intend it as a figure for?
  • "between 1851 and 1911 the population increased by 320,000 in the region of the South Wales Coalfield" from what to what? presumably this was a very significant rise?
  • The source does not clarify the years, unfortunately. – SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "56.8 million long tons of coal per annum" I would suggest giving metric figures as well, perhaps using template:Convert
  • What proportion of world coal production did the UK account for in 1913? I'd imagine quite a big one.
  • "48 per cent of all UK mining deaths occurred in Wales" is this a figure for a particular year or decade or something else?
  • "As coal output from British collieries reached its peak in 1913 there was a correspondingly large number of accidents around this time" do we know how large?
  • You might mention Senghenydd's proximity to Cardiff, particularly for international readers who won't know British geography very well. I think mentioning the distance from Cardiff, combined with the map, would be enough.
  • Firedamp linked twice
  • "the Act required that ventilation fans in all collieries were to be capable of reversing the air current" not sure you need "were to" here, you could just have "the Act required that ventilation fans in all collieries be capable ... etc"
  • "No work was undertaken at Senghenydd to implement the requirement" do we know why not? could the bosses just not be bothered? (ignore if this is covered further down, I had only got to about this point the first time)
  • No explanation was given: the official report notes that the company admitted it had not been done, but gives no further indication of why - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the final paragraph of a single line into the previous paragraph, between the sentences ending "... by 1 January 1913" and starting "No work was undertaken ..." I think it works well to end the background section on the missed deadline before going into the tragedy itself.
14 October 1913
  • "Many victims not killed immediately by the explosion and fire, died from the effects of afterdamp" not sure you need the comma here, and you might want to add an extra clause explaining what afterdamp is.
  • We had it as a footnote from an earlier section (dealing with the 1910 incident), but I've moved it into the main body there. – SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "D.R. Thomas"; per MOS:INITIALS you should have a space between the initials (I personally prefer without the full stops, but I leave that to your discretion)
  • "They were the last survivors found; 432 miners had died that day—although some bodies were not found until later—and 7 others died later in hospital or at home." The number seven should be spelt out as it's under 10. I'd change the semicolon to a full stop and add "A total of" to avoid having a numeral at the start of the sentence. "They were the last survivors found. A total of 432 miners had died that day—although some bodies were not found until later—and seven others died later in hospital or at home."
  • Per WP:NUMNOTES we shouldn't mix numerals and spelled out numbers; the rest of the changes adopted in full – SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A journalist from The Times wrote 'The numbers are truly awful ...'" you need a colon after "wrote"
  • "a reporter for The Dundee Courier thought 'the scene ...'" ditto
Rescue
  • "The fire caused the infrastructure within the tunnels to became unstable and roof falls triggered outbursts of methane." I'd add a comma here before "and"
  • "Several rescuers were injured by the falls, and one was killed." perhaps "Several rescuers were injured by the falls, one fatally."
  • "were overcome with the effects of firedamp" not by the effects of firedamp?
  • "late in the day, a new water supply" do we know what time exactly (or roughly? afternoon, evening?)?
  • "a new water supply connected to three-quarters of a mile (1.2 km) of pipes to a nearby reservoir was installed in the Lancaster shaft" I'd put commas after "supply" and "reservoir" and change the first "to" here to "by": "by three-quarters ..."
  • "Another fund—the Mansion House Fund—set up by the Lord Mayor of London raised more than £3,000 on its first day." I'd lose the emdashes here and put commas, slightly differently: "Another fund, the Mansion House Fund set up by the Lord Mayor of London, raised more than £3,000 on its first day."
  • "It was unlikely that anyone was left alive." says who?
  • Brace – the whole sentence (and the one before) précises his statement – SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thirty yards" not 30 yards?
  • any reason why we gave km above when we were talking about the pipes, and not in other places?
  • "one in Senghenydd for the men who died in the colliery, and one in Cardiff, for those who had died in hospital." inconsistent comma usage (after "Senghenydd" and "Cardiff" respectively). I'd lose the one after "Cardiff"
  • "On the following day—Friday 17 October—the first funerals took place." perhaps "The first funerals took place the following day, Friday 17 October."
  • "150,000 mourners gathered" you have a numeral here starting a sentence, and later in the sentence you have "8" rather than "eight"
  • Tweaked the opening; NUMNOTES on the second part of the point – SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first of the 4 areas" four areas
  • "The Senghenydd explosion is the worst mining disaster in Britain." seems odd at the end of that section. I'd move it into "aftermath", probably at the beginning, and put something along the lines of "remains the worst mining disaster in Britain", rather than just "is", which reads a bit oddly to me
Aftermath
  • R A S Redmayne: see above my note re initials and be consistent in usage
  • "9,000 questions were put to 50 witnesses" sentence starting with numeral. I'd also put a comma after this.

Have to get off now, but I'll come back to finish later. Hope this helps in the meantime. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Cliftonian. Still a couple I need to sort out (a further trip to the sources needed), but this has been hugely useful. Many thanks – SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley edit

Only a few minor suggestions from me.

  • Growth of the Welsh coal industry
    • "the Welsh coal industry was conducted on a relatively small scale" – "conducted" seems a slightly unexpected word. I think you might do without it, perhaps, and just say "was on a relatively small scale". (Relative to what?, some pedantic souls may wonder, but to Hell with them.)
    • "tons of coal per annum" – a personal preference, but I think "a year" is better than "per annum". (You are wont to smile at my penchant for flinging Latin tags around, but sometimes I find English is shorter and plainer. I see you have "tons a week" later, which I think you'll agree would not be better as "per hebdomadem".)
      • I'm not sure: I shall start using "per hebdomadem" forthwith! Meanwhile "per year" will suit for this article. – SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The South Wales Coalfield" – capital C?
    • "higher-than-average proportion" – not sure about the hyphens. I'd ask an expert like Chris the Speller to look in pre-FAC.
  • Senghenydd and the Universal Colliery
    • "nightshift" – the OED gives this as two words (not even hyphenated)
  • 14 October 1913
    • "which involved placing a naked flame into cavities to see if the flame lengthens" – switches from past to present tense. I'd make this "lengthened", I think.
  • Rescue, fire-fighting and recovery: 15 October to 30 November
    • "Both inquests were adjourned the same day" – if a suitable source is to hand it might be worth adding a footnote here explaining, especially for non-British readers, that this is a quite normal procedure during inquests examining incidents like this.
  • Aftermath
    • R A S Redmayne – with no full stops (and John H Brown later). Bravo, say I, but you have given D.R. Thomas full stops earlier.
    • "a memorial to those lost the disaster" – missing an "in"?
    • "centennial" – there's a celebratory sense to that word that there isn't to "centenary", which I think might be more appropriate here.
    • "a bronze statue by the sculptor Les Johnson FRBS" – I don't know that we need the words "the sculptor": it's fairly self-evident. And I think we avoid using postnominals in the text.

This is a fine piece; there isn't, to my mind, a false note throughout, which can't have been easy when writing of such shameful mismanagement and so tragic a result. – Tim riley talk 22:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim, hugely useful, as always, and I've adopted your suggestions (with one to find a source for first) Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Excellent article on a terrible event. I'm doing this offline so please forgive any comments that are out of date:
Lede:
  • "Universal Colliery on the South Wales Coalfield, produced steam coal, which was much in demand." I don't understand the placement of the commas. Also, "on the South Wales Coalfield" feels a bit artificially inserted to permit the link.
  • "and were prone to explosions" Missing full stop. I would focus on the firedamp there and perhaps say "which was highly explosive" or similar.
  • "coal dust" link?
  • "a Welsh national memorial to all mining disasters" well, to those killed/injured in them, I would think.
  • "To accommodate the change in its industrial profile, between 1851 and 1911 the population increased by 320,000 in the region of the South Wales Coalfield" this feels a bit impersonal. Possibly something along the lines of "As employment became available, many people moved to the area of the South Wales Coalfield; between 1851 and 1911 the population increased by 320,000." or some such
  • "The South Wales Coalfield produced anthracite and bituminous coal—also called steam coal—which was much in demand." without clicking the link I don't know if steam coal is bituminous or a combination of both. Possibly separate a bit better.
  • "Much of the output came from pits known for seams with high quantities of firedamp," since having high quantities (quantities?) was the norm, why would the pits with it be known for it? (when everyone is somebody then no one's anybody)
  • It's relative to pits in the rest of the UK: I'll re-work (after I've checked the source to make sure I'm right about that!) – SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This geological factor contributed to a higher-than-average proportion of accidents: between 1880 and 1900, 48 per cent of all UK mining deaths occurred in Wales." So what is this being measured against? Was, say, the Welsh production of coal higher or less than 48 percent? Or did they have more or less than 48 percent of the miners, you get the idea.
  • "and sinking the first mineshaft for Universal Colliery—which was owned and developed by William Lewis—began in 1891" It may be an ENGVAR thing, but I'm thinking there should be an "of" after "sinking"
  • " were paid on a scale determined by the Sliding Scale Committee," scale/Scale. rate? As the SSC sounds like a bit of an advance on the Dickensian work at a farthing a week or starve, it might be worth mentioning what it was, at least in a footnote.
  • "with some small concessions granted by the association" I might say owners for association.
  • "a heavy roof fall in the Mafeking return ... uphill" again a bit obscure. Is there an article that defines mining terminology that might be placed in a headnote?
  • ", later Sir," I'd cut. His later honour has no relevance here and there's a link.
  • I would move the discussion of firedamp and afterdamp up to the first mention of the former in the article body. Also, why is afterdamp italicised?
  • "They combine with hemoglobin in the bloodstream which stops the cells from carrying oxygen," Seems like a grammar issue revolving around "which" but it may be ENGVAR again.
  • "Concerned by the possible ramifications in British mines, the Inspectorate of Mines conducted its own investigation, reporting back in 1907, 1909 and 1911." avoid mines/Mines, possibly by "Concerned that a similar disaster might happen in Britain, ..." I'd also make clearer what the investigation was.
  • I would keep the material on the noncompliance together by moving the sentence on 1913 production to the end of the paragraph.
14 October
  • "Between 5:10 and 6:00 am 950 men descended the shaft, for a shift that was due to last until 2:00 pm." I might cut the comma.
  • "accompanied by overman, D R Thomas" I don't know about the comma.
  • " The explosion travelled up the Lancaster shaft to the surface," possibly "explosive wave" for "explosion"
  • "Shaw took charge" Well, he is the manager, thus already in charge. I don't see the relevance of the underground "shift officials", since Shaw was superior to them in rank in any case. Officials? An odd term.
  • "They established that the men from the east side" I might say "found" for "established"
Rescue etc
  • "The fire caused the infrastructure within the tunnels to became unstable," possibly "roof supports" or similar instead of the i-word.
  • The royal description. After mentioning the wedding, I might go start with the king's donation, then the display of the wedding presents, then the rest. Seems more logical and tones down the little bit of Nero fiddling while South Wales burns that comes with even the mention of the king going to a wedding
  • "and depriving the area of air" I might say "and consuming the oxygen in the air"
  • "Although the fire was contained, mine rescue teams" not rescue teams any more.
  • " to allow for the coroner's inquest to run." which one, and what happened to the other one?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Wehwalt - much appreciated! I've done the straightforward ones and will go back to the sources shortly to sort the rest. Cheers - – SchroCat (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments edit

  • Cheers Crisco 1492 - much appreciated. I've sorted out those with issues, which all seem to be straightforward for once! – SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review now closed: many thanks to all who took part. -SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Senghenydd_colliery_disaster/archive1&oldid=1138565374"