Talk:Cymmer Colliery explosion/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 00:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Here we go again, I am interested in this article after the James Harvey Insole's article. As with that article, I will save both of our time by making minor tweaks to links, cite order, commas and provide the diffs to you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! ~ RLO1729&#128172; 00:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Intro, infobox, and Background

 * A few links were added, a punctuation change, and a cite order fix were made here
 * Thanks, though I would like to revisit the additional comma in light of my reply in the George Insole review please. ~ RLO1729&#128172;
 * That's fine. I would work on consistency in approach throughout and across the three articles, instead of sometimes using a comma and sometimes not.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The intro does not quite summarize this article, it would be great to have more information about the cause (company management/block quote), inquest, trial, and ramifications of the explosion.
 * Agreed, I've revised the Intro. ~ RLO1729&#128172;
 * You did a great job! I added two links - one of which is a red link (Mines Regulation Act of 1860) until I work on the article tonight.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You don't need citations in the intro unless there is some sort of claim - or the content is not included in the body of the article. See WP:CITELEAD.
 * Agreed, except for the quoted text. As the remaining referencing is minimal I would prefer to leave them as is even if not completely necessary. ~ RLO1729&#128172;
 * I get it and often feel the same way. Some are sticklers for no citations in the intro unless needed for a claim, etc. I have had to remove them for my GA articles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to have the author for the quote in the Background section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with including the source explicitly in the side quoteboxes as they are less directly connected with the text. However, I'd suggest that in normal academic writing it would be more usual to not include the author after an in-text quote (even a longer, indented quote as in this case) as it detracts from the flow of the text and, if desired, the author can be found readily by consulting the citation. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 01:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I've named the author prior to the quote. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 01:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, that works!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it much more distracting not to have the author. It makes me stop reading to try to figure out the context and perspective... when I otherwise would continue reading the article. But, this is not something that affects whether or not the article passes. It is a suggestion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This section is ✅–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Explosion

 * I added one link to the caption for the image.
 * Thanks. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 01:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no other comments or suggestions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Inquest

 * No suggestions
 * The collapsible table is very cool! I am going to figure out how you did that!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * :) ~ RLO1729&#128172;

Trial

 * Suggestion: Author for the second quote, which I am guessing by the wording before the third quote is Lewis. Or, please clarify who Lewis is for the third quote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The second quote is from a contemporary newspaper article. ~ RLO1729&#128172;
 * I see that you used "Welsh historian E. D. Lewis" in the Background section, but you have been using full names throughout the article. My suggestion is just to add E. D. to his name in this section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally use full name first then only surname thereafter, but have added initials here as you suggest for clarity. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 02:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, and I was going for consistency. For instance, there are six instances, for "Jabez Thomas" and the surname only used once, where his full name is in the same sentence. I could be missing something, but in this article, I think full names were used throughout.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking that up. The multiple use of Jabez has grown during various edits (including the recent lead section update) without me noticing - now corrected. I think the only other multiple use of forename (other than as required by direct quotes) is to distinguish people with the same surname mentioned in the same sentence. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 04:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , My point wasn't that it was a problem. You have been using full names throughout. It was just an example. Please note that there are two men with the surname of Thomas in this article. We were fine after you added E.D. to Lewis. I was just explaining that I was going for consistency. Sorry to take this off-track.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I returned the first names for Jabez. Sorry for creating confusion. This section is ✅.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't agree that full names are being used throughout, only where necessary to avoid confusion. Removing "Jabez" where I did made the article more consistent in terms of "full name first, surname afterwards". There are a number of people with surname Thomas mentioned in the article but qualifying the surname where necessary, such as "mine manager Thomas", and the context made sure there was no confusion as to which person was meant at each stage in the article. So I don't see that the reversion of these edits was necessary. Nevertheless, ultimately a minor point. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 23:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like there is contention and I am sorry if I have done anything to make you feel defensive. You have done great work. We just see things differently.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Survivors

 * I added a link and moved the close paren, assuming that the references apply to the entire image caption.
 * They can do, so thanks. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 03:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No other comments or suggestions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Legacy

 * I added two links and fixed one cite order here. One of the links is a red link for an article I may write.
 * Thanks. As we haven't named the other pieces of legislation in the lead section, I'd prefer to leave specific mention of the 1860 Act to just the Legacy section. ~ RLO1729&#128172;
 * Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * There are missing citations in this section.– CaroleHenson (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The citation after the colon in the opening line of the section is intended to cover all of the "following events". ~ RLO1729&#128172; 03:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. That would make sense if there were no other citations used. I think it would be best to add the citation to anything that is not cited. What will it hurt?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear from the placement of the citation after "following events" that it refers to each of the events in the list, even if the first item has an additional citation within its text. The only other citation in the list is from the same source to give a page number for the quote. The alternative is to repeat [3] at the end of each item in the list, six times, which seems redundant. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 04:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This section is ✅.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments
Another great job. I really like the intro now! The only thing that is a key issue is adding citations to the Legacy section
 * Covered in reply now in Legacy section above. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 03:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I take the need to provide supporting citations very seriously, so for the record here I would add that all points in the Legacy section were always covered by at least one citation and citations were not missing as stated in the Review comments. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 23:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I understand that your intention and approach is good and comes with the best intentions. That makes your articles easy to review! I think we just have different opinions about how to make that clear to the readers. And, from the number of UK articles I have reviewed, edited and written (e.g. Cornwall mines and artists, UK stained glass artists and sculptors)—I think that there are some differences in approach, grammer, and punctuation. And, it is okay that we have different opinions and I want you to ensure that you are identifying which suggestions would go against UK norms. I am sorry if I offended you, that absolutely was not my intention.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you read the comment under the GA criteria table? I thought I explained there that the items in the list were cited as a group.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks - not offended and I have appreciated your very helpful reviews, just wishing to counteract the comment of "There are missing references in the Legacy section" which still appears very prominently in the Review Comments section and would be misunderstood by readers who do not go into the details of the discussion, even with the additional comment in that section.  ~ RLO1729&#128172; 01:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhhhh. I struck that out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

— and please see the comment about copyvio in the table. The other few points are suggestions / food for thought.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The copyvio section of the GA criteria table says Pending and not what I typed. So, I am pasting what I typed here:
 * Please see this copy vio report. It appears that the information about the injured parties was copy and pasted. I am guessing that this newspaper is in the public domain now, since it was published in 1856. (In the U.S., the dividing line is 1923) Is that so? Otherwise, I am not finding any issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the information in the table is taken directly from the public domain newspaper cited in the table heading. ~ RLO1729&#128172; 03:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I had not realized earlier that there were "Further reading" items in the "See also" section. See MOS:SEEALSO and MOS:FURTHER. I created a Further reading section and moved the items that were not wikilinks to that section.


 * I have passed this article. It was really interesting, especially the "Legacy" section. Thanks so much for creating it!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)