Talk:Tradeston Flour Mills explosion/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 13:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Lead:
 * There really is only one paragraph of lead here - the second paragraph is really "Background" and should be sectioned off as such. We need a summary per WP:LEDE and because it summarizes the lead, we won't need citations in it.
 * "consisted of a five storey grain store on King Street (now Kingston Street), another grain store that occupied most of a four storey building on Clyde Place, and a four-storey grain mill " stick with either "five storey" or "four-storey" here... one or the other
 * Explosion:
 * Can we know how many of the employees of the nearby businesses were killed and wounded?
 * I think we should probably list the total killed and injured here as well as in the lead. As I mentioned above about the lead - the lead needs to summarize the body - so the body should repeat information in the lead
 * It isn't usual to repeat citations such as you've done with the second paragraph - there is no need to have the little [1] after each successive paragraph. Instead you can just put the one citation at the phrase "facing onto Commerce Street collapsed into the street," and it will be considered to cover all the sentences prior to it in the paragraph. This isn't required for GA status - but the usual practice is not to do this sort of citation in our GA and FA level articles.
 * "(that was the original terminus of the Glasgow and Paisley Joint Railway before Glasgow Central station opened)" this is really not needed here - if you really feel that it's got to be in the article, I suggest an explanatory footnote, but it's distracting in the main body of the article.
 * Links for "Lord Provost" "Master of Works" or "Dean of Guild"
 * Investigation:
 * "Professor Macquorn Rankine " professor of what and where?
 * "on 9 August a month to the day" suggest removing "a month to the day" as it's just padding
 * Did the recommendation to move the exhaust boxes out get taken up either in the UK or elsewhere in the world?
 * I did a bit of copyediting - please make sure I didn't break anything in the process?
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Investigation:
 * "Professor Macquorn Rankine " professor of what and where?
 * "on 9 August a month to the day" suggest removing "a month to the day" as it's just padding
 * Did the recommendation to move the exhaust boxes out get taken up either in the UK or elsewhere in the world?
 * I did a bit of copyediting - please make sure I didn't break anything in the process?
 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I've had a go at amending the article based on all but one and a bit of the issues you identified.


 * On the subject of whether other businesses took on the recommendations, I'll need to do some more research. It's been a while and I can't remember off the top of my head.


 * On the subject of identifying the number of deaths/injuries of people outwith the mill, I've updated the article (I had those notes handy from my original research). I'll need to read through the newspaper articles again to take notes of the specifics of the injured people.


 * Also I added a table with some basic details about the people who died in this incident. Not sure whether it should stay or go though. Might be a bit much, so I made it default to collapsed. I'd appreciate your opinion.


 * Thanks for the taking the time to review the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * These all look good. I'm agnostic on the table - it's not something I might have done but it's not horrid either, especially not as a collapsed box, so I'm not going to say it needs to go. Passing this for GA now. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)