Wikipedia:Peer review/Aberfan disaster/archive1

Aberfan disaster
The Aberfan disaster was a truly terrible and shocking incident: a slip from the spoil tips led to an avalanche of coal slurry down onto a small Welsh village. The junior school was the first major structure to be hit. Of the 144 people who died in the disaster, 116 of them were children, mostly between the ages of 7 and 10. Five of the adults who died were teachers at the school. Even fifty one years after the event, it is still an uncomfortable subject to read and write about.

A future FAC is hoped for, unless reviewers think otherwise. Any and all constructive comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Images

 * File:Aberfan_disaster,_October_1966.jpg: original source may have been Western Mail. The "unique historic images" tag is generally used only in those cases in which the image itself, rather than what is depicted, is the subject of commentary - if that's not possible suggest using a different tag
 * OK, different tag now applied. - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * File:Aberfan_disaster_-_extent_of_the_spoil_slip.jpg: copyright expiration generally takes place at end of year, so this likely won't be PD for a few months yet. Same with File:Aberfan_spoil_heaps_pre_disaster.jpg and likely File:Aberfan_spoil_heaps_post_disaster.tif (not sure why these have different dates listed)
 * Hi, I think all three images are needed. I appreciate that we're about 3 months away from them being free, but is there an acceptable workaround we can put in place for that timeframe? Would you be OK if all three were kept as locally-hosted, non-free files until 1 Jan? cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of an issue given the non-free files already in the article - you'd have a hard time getting through FAC with those plus these. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Getty images seems to be laying claim to the copyright [stating the license is (Photo by Rolls Press/Popperfoto/Getty Images)]for the color photo.  The Western Mail version seems to have been saturated with extra color but both images look identical to my eye. Shearonink (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Getty claim copyright with everything, regardless of the status of the work. For example, they claim copyright in this (published in the Illustrated London News in 1913 and out of copyright) and this (published in 1913 as a postcard and out of copyright; I uploaded this one to Commons last year for the Senghenydd colliery disaster article). - SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've put File:Aberfan disaster - extent of the spoil slip.jpg as a non-free file, as it's crucial for understanding the extent of the spill. It's only for three months, and it can go back to the larger format free image then.
 * I've (grudgingly) taken out File:Aberfan_spoil_heaps_pre_disaster.jpg and File:Aberfan_spoil_heaps_post_disaster.tif. I'll mull over keeping this out of FAC until next year, as I think all three of these are crucial to understanding, but I think our rules on how many non-free images we can use are flawed – particularly when so close to falling out of copyright. – SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * File:Rescue_of_a_young_girl_at_Aberfan,_21_October_1966.jpg: per above, if it's the event and not the image that's significant should use a different tag
 * Given the status of the images from the report, I've taken this one out. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * File:S.O._Davies_portrait_1490010.jpg: the source website seems to indicate a licensing of CC NC-ND, not CC0. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, removed Davies: it's not something we could get round, and it's not central enough to argue for a NFCC inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * The coordinates should be displayed at the top of the article, as well as in the infobox, for all the reasons that they do so in almost very other article that has primary coordinates (including, for example today's featured article). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally discussing the point, as you declined to do so on the talk page when requested. Could you please point to some guideline or policy that mandates the close repetition? - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly: WP:Coordinates (part of the MoS, and so a "guideline") "Use. In this case, as there are coordinates in the infobox, it is the later which is appropriate. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Good. Just a guideline, and nothing that mandates having it more once. Rex has provided more information on the article talk page and confirmed that code stripping computers are still able to read to same information if it is only in an idiotbox. Perhaps we should get rid of that IB and just have the put of context figures floating at the top of the page instead. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A guideline; as you requested. Do you mean User:RexxS? I doubt he he said that. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Talk:Aberfan disaster. I'm hardly likely to make stuff like this up, am I... It is the thread you were asked to explain your edit warring, but didn't turn up to. - SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's clear from the link you have provided that you did indeed make that up. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What has happened to the ADMF, the disaster fund...did it become the Memorial Charity and the Aberfan Education Charity or is it separate? Are the two Charity funds legal descendants of the disaster fund? (so it appears to still be in existence), but what do all these funds do now...50 years after the disaster.  A sentence or two about how they operate or if they deal with any ongoing issues the village or the survivors might have, etc...the narrative just seemed slightly truncated to me (especially since the ADMF is mentioned prominently throughout the article). Shearonink (talk) 06:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * More recent news about the trust is surprisingly hard to find (even in the McLean and Johnes book, which is focused more on the fund than any other source. Having said that, I've found some bits that I've added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This looks like there might be some useful information about the trust and its history, in the 2017 report. In reading it, I also saw the tidbit that sailors from HMS Tiger came to assist after the disaster. That might be worth adding.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fund accounts, Wehwalt - there is some useful stuff there I can use. - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Just a few things,
 * I might link "junior school" Americans might think it means "junior high school" which caters to somewhat older children.
 * Background: I imagine the population of Aberfan was mostly employed in the coal industry. This might be worth a mention as you trace its history.
 * "down the mountain to stop approximately 500 feet (150 m) above the village.[17][13]" refs out of order?
 * "Mynydd Merthyr is in an area" I might say "Aberfan is in an area". Same thing, meteorologically speaking, I'd think.
 * "the senior school" Is this Pantglas County Secondary School, referred to in the caption? Possibly then change in prose to "the secondary school". It might be useful to mention in the caption that the junior school was adjacent to the secondary school.
 * I would think "avalanche" would be a useful synonym for "slide" and similar. You use it only once, and then as a verb.
 * "Investigating the damage to the secondary school immediately after the slide, its acting headmaster found that" I don't like the fairly lengthy phrase at a time when the prose should be moving forward urgently. Maybe "The acting headmaster of the secondary school recalled," and if you feel the need, a [of the secondary school] after "Girls' Entrance"
 * "After the landslide stopped, local residents began digging through the rubble, moving material by hand or with gardening equipment" I might make it clearer that they were trying to get into the junior school. I'm not sure this captures the desperation with which they were probably working.
 * Do we know the total number of children enroled at the school at the time? The age range of the children who died?
 * I'll sort the first part once I've gone back to the sources; the second part is covered in the second paragraph of the "Rescue efforts" section, where we state that the victims were "mostly between the ages of 7 and 10". If you think that's a little too hidden in the text, I'm open to suggestions about how or where else to mention it. - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously my eyes glided over it but that's my fault not yours.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "12:00 pm" I would have expected "12.00 noon" but maybe I'm wrong.
 * "the Attorney General warned the media that comments on matters to be investigated by the tribunal could lay them open to the same consequences as contempt of court.[67][e] " While I know that British media may not comment on certain matters sub judice this may not be as clear to others. Possibly "cautioned the media against commenting ..." or similar.
 * "and took evidence in public for 76 days, spread over the next five months; during that time it took evidence from 136 witnesses" I would ditch one of the "took evidence", likely the second, since it can be said that the witnesses testified.
 * "he added that he had not spoken out because he has "more than a shrewd suspicion that that colliery would be closed"." Should "has" be "had"?
 * "Under cross-examination by Ackner, Robens gave evidence inconsistent with that provided by the NCB," such as?
 * "Some parents of deceased children reported extreme feelings of guilt,[84] as did one of the pupils who survived, who reported:" I might pipe somewhere in here to survivor guilt.
 * "There were medical problems for the residents of Aberfan following the disaster." I might rephrase into the active voice.
 * "All messages of support to him were catalogued by the NUM," by the NUM rather than the NCB? Surprising.
 * "NCB insurance staff advised Robens that "it is only the hard core [of bereaved parents] who are trying to capitalize"" they wrote capitalize rather than capitalise?
 * Yes; I checked a couple of sources, just to make sure, and they all show a Z. - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "he petitioned and lobbied to avoid the NCB's liability for costs. " I might simplify as "he lobbied to avoid having the NCB pay".
 * "represented the queen" HM is earlier "the Queen".
 * "a 19-year-old boy" I might strike "boy" or change it to "youth" considering the years.
 * I'm glad to see an inflation adjustment calculation, but it might be worth putting next to the offers of compensation. The reader's probably more interested in the compensation offers than in the cleanup costs
 * My thought on the article as a whole is that it is almost too dispassionate. The emotional reactions of the villagers might well be used in the part of the article dealing with the attempts to rescue children from the school, or from the few who survived it, in quote boxes if you do not feel it should be in prose. Otherwise it's quite excellent.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks - all hugely useful. On your last point, Yes, I have tried to be a bit dispassionate (even when it has been very trying to do so), but there are certainly a few points where I could relax that to emphasise the effects on the residents. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A couple more things.
 * It looks like Lord Robens resigned the on 7 August, the week after the report came out. This is the NY Times coverage (8 August 1967, p. 9) Coal Board Leader Quits In Wake of Aberfan Report

LONDON, Aug. 7--Lord Robens submitted his resignation today as chairman of the National Coal Board, which a Government-appointed tribunal last week said bore the major responsibility for the disaster last year in the Welsh coal mining town of Aberfan.
 * He submitted his resignation, but it was rejected (all pre-arranged, of course); we cover it in the second third para of the "NCB and its personnel" section, but I think we should bring it out a bit more. I'll work on that section again. - SchroCat (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, How does the third para of the "Aberfan disaster" section look now? I've separated it out and added some dates for context. - SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton
Initially, a few comments on the lead:
 * Suggest insert the phrase "the tip was saturated" after "After three weeks of heavy rain". This will involve some repunctuation/sentence splitting, perhaps a full stop after "...area of the village2 and a semicolon after "...just begun".
 * "The report blamed the NCB for extreme negligence". The emphasised words don't appear in the article, nor I believe in the report which certainly laid blame on the board it chose to cite ignorance and incompetence rather than negligence which would surely have laid the Board and individuals open to criminal prosecution. I'd reconsider those two words.
 * "The remaining tips were made safe only the  after a lengthy fight by Aberfan residents, who were resisted by the NCB and Labour government of Harold Wilson". This resistance was largely on the grounds of cost and who should pay, so perhaps amend the second part of the sentence to "...residents, against resistance from the NCB and the government on the grounds of cost". (No need at this stage to specify "Labour government under Harold Wilson".
 * One very small point: in the third line I'd replace "then" with "and"

Reading on, and will comment further. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments on further sections:
 * Background
 * "In between the Taff and the former railway line lies Aberfan." This sentence is a little confusing, as you've just said that the River Taff runs through the village. Personally I  think the sentence is unnecessary, since you've already explained where Aberfan is.
 * Second para line 4: delete "At"
 * There's a WP article for tailings, which might be a useful link. In any event, I think the explanation could be shortened: "...tailings – fine particles of coal and ash which took on the similar properties to quicksand when wet".
 * "run-up" is hyphenated according to the OED
 * "entered into correspondence with" → "corresponded with": (you don't "enter into correspondence" for a nine-month period.)
 * Penultimate line: "action toward" seems wrong - "action on"?
 * Tip collapse
 * What was the relationship of the 9.15 breakaway to the earlier subsidence noted at 7.30? Did anyone from the morning shift take any action to report the subsidence?
 * "Approximately 140,000 cubic yards (110,000 m3) of spoil was deposited in the slip's pathway down the mountain, where two farm cottages were destroyed, killing the occupants". A little wordy; suggest "Approximately 140,000 cubic yards (110,000 m3) of spoil slid down the mountain, destroying two farm cottages and killing the occupants".
 * I'd split the sentence at this point. There are, however, problems with the remainder of the sentence: "around 50,000 cubic yards (38,000 m3) was estimated to have travelled across the canal and railway embankment and into the village, consisting 500,000 tonnes (490,000 long tons) of material." "Around" eliminates the need for "was estimated to have", and the word "of" is missing after "consisting". And "long tons" should be linked.
 * Does "240 attendees" include teachers and children? The total number on the premises needs to be given, but teachers are not really "attendees", so perhaps a different word or phrase could be used.
 * Does "on the road" mean Moy Road, or should it be "on surrounding roads"? Photographs indicate that destruction extended well beyond the one road.
 * "it re-solidified": how could this happen? It doesn't seem possible, particularly as water from the burst mains continued to penetrate the   the slurry for hours after the slip.
 * My knowledge of water dynamics is very slim! I think the water from main affected some parts and not others, while in some places the water leached out of the spoil fairly quickly, which led to the solidification. There is news footage showing black water pouring down one of the streets – devoid of most of the spoil content it would once have had. That's all mostly my OR, but I'll hunt round to see if the sources can provide a more complete explanation we can use. – SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a quote from G. M. J. Williams, the consultant engineer who gave evidence to the tribunal, on what happened. It doesn't cover the point on what happened to the water from the mains, but I think my OR is probably fairly close on that point; I'll keep trying to track down an explanation of the path that water took. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Rescue efforts and retrieval of the bodies
 * Fifth para: the word "situation" is repeated in close proximity. Perhaps the first should be "disaster".
 * "Wilson gave Hughes any powers he thought necessary to deal with the situation and told him to "take whatever action he thought necessary, irrespective of any considerations of 'normal procedures', expenditure or statutory limitations". A little repetitive: could be shortened thus: "Wilson told Hughes to "take whatever action he thought necessary, irrespective of any considerations of 'normal procedures', expenditure or statutory limitations".
 * "A makeshift mortuary was set up in the village's Bethania Chapel from 21 October until 4 November 1966..." As per an earlier comment, it wasn't "set up from 21 October until 4 November 1966". It was set up on the day of the disaster, and operated until 4 November. You needn't give the year.
 * "A separate coroner's inquest was opened..." The word "separate" isn't necessary.

Rest to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Brian. Mostly done (in and around the unwelcome and unnecessary interruptions), but with a couple of points to pick up on later. I look forward to the rest of your comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

My final offerings:


 * Aberfan Disaster Tribunal
 * "Before the tribunal began, the Attorney General cautioned the media against commenting on matters to be investigated by the tribunal could lay them open to the same consequences as contempt of court." Not grammatical as it stands. Suggest replace "against" with "that".
 * Aberfan residents
 * "the over 50,000 letters of condolence" reads clumsily. Suggest delete "the".
 * "During the five years after the disaster the birth rate rose considerably, in marked contrast to that of Merthyr Tydfil." This seems an odd sentence to find in the middle of a paragraph otherwise devoted to medical problems. It seems to me more like a sort of "Despite these problems..." sentence that  you'd place at the end of the paragraph, since it goes against the  grain of the former text.
 * NCB and its personnel
 * Delete the "MP" after Thatcher - that's implied by the parliamentary debate context. I'd also say "then the opposition spokesman..." just for clarity
 * Date the McLean and Johnes research project, e.g. "In 2000 Iain McLean, a professor of politics, and Martin Johnes, a research fellow in Welsh history, published a study of the Aberfan disaster..." etc
 * Robens's choreographed "resignation" dance should be specifically tied to the publication of the Edmund Davies report. At the moment it looks out of context.
 * Disaster fund
 * I think this sectiion needs a little more information. It says how much the fund held, and charts various legal disputes concerning its distribution to the families, but doesn't say how much was actually distributed, or was otherwise spent. You quote the Cabinet Office report which says the fund "did help in alleviating the suffering and was a focus for the grief of many that the fund financed", but could be more specific, as the report also says that "As well as donating money to the bereaved, the Fund paid for a memorial, house repairs, holidays for villagers and a community hall. The well publicised and widespread fears that the money would just stagnate in investment accounts (as had happened with many other disaster funds) were proved unfounded". This is useful detail. Is there any informatioin as to how much was actually distributed directly to the bereaved families, and on what basis?
 * Legacy
 * Harping on the same theme, really. Do we know what the additional £2 million donated by the Welsh government was used for?

No other points. With a little final polishing it will make an excellent FA. Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Brian. Much of the straightforward ones done, but a few points left to deal with post-PR. As with other articles I've worked on, I intend to ask at least one academic in the field to have a look over to see if the balance is right. With the images from the report falling out of copyright on 1 January 2018, I'll leave an FAC run until first thing next year. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto
Annoyingly, I can find very little to snipe about. The only, very minor, things I can find are these:

Rescue efforts and retrieval of the bodies
 * "At 9.25 am Merthyr Tydfil police received a phone call from a local resident that said..." -- the call said this or the caller? Who rather than "that" would be better.
 * "...5 adults and 22 children, one of whom was dead on arrival." -- Adult or child?
 * "A reporter for The Observer wrote that Robens said the organisation..." --Seems awkward. Can it be adjusted? Maybe:  or similar?

Continuing...  Cassianto Talk   20:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Cheers Cass - all done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz
A great article and I congratulate SchroCat on the care taken in the rewrite. I have one small comment. In the sentence "Around 50000 cuyd travelled across the canal and railway embankment and into the village, consisting 500000 t of material." the mass seems too large for the specified volume. The specific gravity of solid rock is around 2.5 (see here) and as one cubic metre of water weighs one tonne, I would expect the mass to be nearer 38,000 x 2.5 = 95,000 tonnes rather than 500,000 tonnes. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Aa77zz, and thanks for your comment. As a non-specialist in the field, I've repeated what the sources have said, rather than trying to crunch the numbers myself. I'll have a further look to see if there are any different sources that confirm or contradict the ones we use. (A quick look shows Lonely Planet also say 500,000 tonnes, but as they aren't known as geological experts, I'm not sure I'd put too much weight on their figure! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've taken it out for now as initial searches don't show anything to back it up. The figure comes from a police museum, so not an expert one, but they will have got the figure from somewhere, and that's what I'll try and track down. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1
A fine article on an awful event. How the aftermath was handled was as appalling as the event was tragic, and this is captured very well. Some, not very substantial, comments below.


 * Lead
 * "The tip slid down the mountain" - when I read this, I asked, what mountain? Perhaps, "The tip slid down a mountain above the village at 9.15..."
 * "and for not providing clarity to the NCB's knowledge of the presence" - "and for not providing clarity as to the NCB's knowledge of the presence"?
 * "Neither the NCB or any of its employees were prosecuted" - Neither the NCB nor any of its employees was prosecuted"? Tim will know.
 * , could you pass judgement on this point? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd stick with "were". There is no firm rule that I know of, but when you have an "either/neither" clause with two nouns or pronouns that take differing verb forms it is usual, and also sensible I'd say, to have the associated verb agree with the second of the two. Thus, "neither he or I have commented"; "neither you nor he has commented". Fowler, I may say, comments that as whatever you decide to do with the verb in such cases it will irritate somebody, he advises avoiding the problem by recasting the sentence, but just for once I venture to disagree with the old boy. I think your "Neither the NCB or any of its employees were prosecuted" is fine. I'll be along today or tomorrow, I hope, to add my thoughts to the peer review.  Tim riley  talk    13:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, I've just received an email from Iain McClean - extremely kindly he replied to my request to look over the article for comments - and he suggested "Neither the NCB nor any of its employees were prosecuted", which seems to be the mid-point between the two of you, and the one I'll plump for now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , Whichever you choose Schro. I would, of course, defer to Mr Riley on all matters grammatical! KJP1 (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite right too. Mr McClean's suggestion is ideal, I think.  Tim riley  talk    15:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "The remaining tips were made safe only after a lengthy fight" - "The remaining tips were removed only after a lengthy fight". As the article later explains, they were removed, rather than secured and landscaped.
 * "taken from the charity fund" - "taken from the memorial fund"?


 * Background
 * "a disused canal bed alongside an unused railway embankment run parallel to the river" - got a bit confused here. Given that you say they run parallel, could you drop the "alongside, "a disused canal bed and an unused railway embankment run parallel to the river"?
 * "Numbers 4 and 5 are conical mounds at the apex of the slope; the remaining five are lower down; all are directly above the village." Not sure why we've moved into the present tense?


 * Tip collapse
 * "the rails on which the spoil was transported to the top of the tip had fallen into the hole" - "the rails on which the spoil was transported to the top of the tip fell into the resulting hole / or the hole created"?
 * "a new tipping position would be decided the following week" - "a new tipping position would be decided on the following week"?
 * "A huge mound of slurry up to 30 feet (9.1 m) deep blocked the area." - Perhaps, "A huge mound of slurry up to 30 feet (9.1 m) high blocked the area.
 * "Nansi Williams, the school meals clerk - that's a spelling of Nansi I've never seen. Welsh?
 * Indeed it is (although I had to check to make sure). The harpist Nansi Richards is the only one we have listed on WP - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rescue efforts and retrieval of the bodies
 * "water mains still pumping water into the spoil in Aberfan, the slip still moved through the village" - "water mains still pumping water into the spoil in Aberfan, the slip continued to move through the village"? Saves using two "still"s.
 * "He phoned Harold Wilson, the prime minister," - perhaps, more formally, "He telephoned Harold Wilson, the prime minister,"
 * "the causes of death were typically asphyxia, fractured skull..." - "the causes of death were typically asphyxia, fractured skulls"?
 * "the seats of their plane to transport child-size coffins" - perhaps, "the seats of their plane to transport child-sized coffins"?
 * "At daybreak Lord Snowdon visited and spoke with workers..." - Does Snowden need an intro? "The Queens' brother-in-law"? He's likely less well known than Prince Philip?
 * "The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh visited Aberfan on 29 October" - should the Queen be linked here, at her first mention? You could then lose the blue link in Disaster fund.
 * Moved even further up with the link for "the Queens' brother-in-law". - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Aberfan disaster tribunal
 * "The tribunal retired on 28 April 1967 to consider its verdict - this makes it sound like a jury in a trial, and I'm not certain the terminology is quite right. Do inquiries deliver verdicts, as opposed to reports? Perhaps, "The tribunal finished taking evidence on 28 April 1967 and published its report on 3 August.."?


 * NCB and its personnel
 * "Their opinion is that "the Coal Board 'spin-doctored' its way out of trouble" - link 'spin-doctored'?
 * "Robens received a copy of the report" - the chronology threw me a bit here as it follows directly from the 2010 study and I thought we were talking about McLean's report. Perhaps, "Robens had received a copy of the tribunal's report"?


 * Legacy
 * "its effects have also appeared in several works of a cultural nature." - Not sure about "works of a cultural nature." Perhaps something like: "In addition to news and historical coverage, the Aberfan disaster and its aftermath, has been described in books, including histories of what happened, personal memoirs from those involved and collections of poetry, in music and song, and in film."

No blow-by-blow response required. Just take what's useful and ignore the rest. It's a pity the FAC will have to wait due to copyright issues, but I look forward to seeing it there eventually. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks ! Much obliged for your eagle eye, and most (possibly all) have been taken on board, with the exception of the one I've left for Tim to mull over. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
It has been a chastening task to go through this article in detail. I am old enough to remember the events, and even now I feel horror at the disaster, and rage and shame at the aftermath. The mendacious trolls you have had to put up with on Wikipedia pale into total insignificance when compared with the stomach-turning conduct of Robens and his cronies, who were a disgrace to humanity. It cannot have been easy revising the article in this degree of detail, and Wikipedia and its readers have reason to be grateful to you. My comments are few, as those editors who have contributed positively above have done most of the job before me. That's all from me. If you do decide to go to FAC at any point, please ping me. Otherwise, thank you for this fine, thoughtful and painful article.  Tim riley  talk    16:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Background
 * "barge men" – all one word if you believe the OED, which I do.
 * "a disused canal bed and an unused railway embankment" – I struggle a bit with this: I can see what a disused canal bed is, but "an unused railway embankment"? The embankment of an unused railway? The unused (for what?) embankment of a railway? I'm not being lightly pedantic – not for this article: I am genuinely unsure what we are talking about and why.
 * "approximately 2.6 million cubic yards ... Approximately 111 feet" – I might make one "approximately" "about" instead.
 * Rescue efforts and retrieval of the bodies
 * "the organisation's chairman ... Director-General of Production and its Chief Safety Engineer" – consistency of capitalising job titles. Same question for Secretary of State for Wales and prime minister a few sentences later. (Though I'm a Guardian reader I, as an old codger, incline to capitalising, but younger editors may disagree.)
 * Aberfan residents
 * "34% of survivors" – The manual of style bids us express percentages in words in the main text of articles: 34 per cent of survivors.
 * "due to intrusive thoughts" – younger BrE speakers will probably disagree with me, but I was taught that "due to" is an adjective and can modify only pronouns and nouns: I think you want "owing to" or even better "because of" here.
 * Remaining tips and the fund
 * "The residents of Aberfan petitioned George Thomas, the Secretary of State for Wales" – it might be worth redrawing this a little to say something like "...George Thomas, who had succeeded Hughes as Secretary of State for Wales in April 1968".
 * "an option cheaper than removal...removal was a better option" – to avoid too much repetition perhaps recast this as "...removal was preferable"?
 * Legislation
 * "the act was designed ... The Act was an extension" – consistency of capitalisation
 * ["In May 1970 Barbara Castle, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, appointed Robens to chair the Committee on Health and Safety at Work," – you really couldn't make it up, could you? God help us all!]
 * It's one of several occasions I had to re-read the source, shake my head and think, 'what were they thinking...' - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Legacy
 * "Aberfan disaster and its aftermath, has been described" – I don't think you want the comma, and you definitely want a plural "have" rather than a singular "has".
 * "Charles, Prince of Wales" – looks a bit odd: perhaps just "Prince Charles" or "the Prince of Wales", suitably piped?
 * Many thanks Tim: all taken on board and enacted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing PR. Many thanks to you all for your comments. I'll mull over whether to bring this to FAC sooner rather than later, and simply add the crown copyright images in a few months. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)