Talk:Halifax Explosion/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk · contribs) 14:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a very well done article. The feedback I have below is mostly an attempt to suggest improvements which are roughly in line with GA expectations. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the suggestions and any comments you might have, but I don't think it will require much work to pass this article.

Style

 * There are probably a bit too many citations in the lede. In some cases they make sense--e.g. citing the record for largest man made explosion prior to nuclear weapons. Other cases are less clear.
 * The article is probably mildly overlinked. This isn't a GA critereon, but something to keep in mind. Look particularly to cases where we link out in a hat-note and then again immediately in the body text. Similarly, some links in "See also" are linked multiple times in the text.
 * Going to partially disagree with you on this point, as WP:OVERLINK specifically allows for repetition of links between hatnotes/footnotes and body text. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The lede does a fair job summarizing the article but doesn't have much to say on the investigation, reconstruction efforts (a sentence), or legacy. Rescue efforts are mentioned, but summarized briefly. This doesn't mean the whole lede needs to be longer, sentences like "In a meeting of the Royal Society of Canada..." could be trimmed in favor of other things to summarize.
 * Everything is necessarily summarized briefly, but I've done some reorganization here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

content

 * The disaster section begins by introducing two ships, which is important, but I feel it should give the reader some context for the disaster. We remand a discussion of the Narrows to the next section and bury the lede a bit by noting "Ships carrying dangerous cargo were not allowed..." late in the section. We also devote a lot of attention to the reasons for her delay.
 * I'm not sure what else you are looking for in terms of context? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't 100% sure either. :) I think ideally the section should begin with the preliminaries. We've got where the ships were going, but we're missing a few things (or we've remanded those below), namely: a discussion of the Narrows, the requests from the Mont-Blanc's pilot to offload explosives or get an escort and a short discussion of the rules of the road. I think the article might be improved by moving some of those to the top of the section, which would both give the reader context up front and allow the bit on the collision itself to read a bit more smoothly. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We mention Mackey's experience but not Hayes. Do we not know?
 * Reviewing the sources I have to hand, the best we can say is "many years" - they place much more emphasis on Mackey's experience. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "The evening before, 45-year-old Francis Mackey, a harbour pilot..." this paragraph starts with an odd shift in diction. The narrative of the Imo's transparently reckless and sloppy path down the Narrows is described clinically, as though we're summarizing a report or marine logs (or summarizing sources that do). The next paragraph starts by summarizing a personal narrative of the pilot. After a few sentences, the paragraph returns to the previous style.
 * One source, the System Failure Case Study, notes that Mackey asked about escorts or other precautions the night before. That might be more useful to know than his being a guest of the captain.
 * "transverse thrust of her right-hand propellor" I'd say a wikilink might help here, but there isn't great coverage of propeller torque on wikipedia. Closest is a section. We also define "in ballast" in the lede but the impact isn't immediately apparent. Imo was high in the water because it had little cargo, so the torque applied by the propeller was enough to spin her. I don't think that's clear from this section.
 * The explosion section is quite good.
 * "Adding to the chaos were fears..." The paragraph starting with this sentence should be moved above the railway worker para.
 * Not a substantive comment, but I'm surprised given the sequence leading up to the explosion that the Imo wasn't found at fault. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 * What is a "canonical novel"?

images/sources

 * Images all check out. No apparent problems with licensing.
 * "...rose up as high as 18 metres (60 ft) above the harbour's high-water mark..." This is a pretty precise statistic to cite to Britannica. It's there, but still.
 * I have a few other quibbles about sources being used where you likely have good alternatives, but they're just that, quibbles. Spot checking of sources reveals no problems.

Thanks for your time! Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Adam (Wiki Ed), thanks for your review. Except where noted above, I believe I have addressed these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I'll take a look this morning. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)