Canoe River train crash is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 21, 2011. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Couple more thoughts, branching off from the FAC comments:
Those are all the notes I have left over from reading through the article. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Updated: 06:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there any specific reason for forcing the image sizes in this article? I can only speak for my self obviously, but the images look disproportionately large on my screen. Doesn't WP:IMGSIZE dictate to not use forced image sizes? -- Eisfbnore • talk 10:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I have obtained a copy of a Canadian National Railways passenger timetable and the distances for places mentioned are:
Station | Miles from Montreal |
---|---|
Jasper | 2395.1 |
Red Pass Junction | 2438.9 |
Jackman (end of ABS signalling) | 2460.6 |
Valemount | 2469.6 |
Cedarside | 2473.5 |
Canoe River | 2478.4 |
Gosnell | 2498.4 |
Blue River | 2527.5 |
Vancouver | 2924.2 |
Reference: Canadian National Railways. Passenger Time Tables: April 28 to October 26, 1957. p. 51. Table 135.
Hope this helps — Iain Bell ( talk) 10:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The part on the bar exam doesn't make much sense. It says the BC bar was notoriously difficult, but then it says it consisted of one simple question. Why was it just one? Did they change it for him or something? -- AW ( talk) 08:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Very important that pictures are relevant to the sections. they are not just "eye candy" to place in the golden text...but really are very powerful methods of communication. That is why AP pays money for stringers to take pics of Green Helmet man and the like.
Anyhow, let me just see what the article looks like with the newspaper up top. The crash map with the crash section. The siding thing with the inquiry. (MUCH better fits for those last two). And the train, I guess under rescue (no good home for it).
The Infobox gone (we could keep it, also, but really not helpful, this is not an "almanac" type of topic).
And getting rid of the L-R alternation (so 2007).
Feel free to revert after. Just want to see what it looks like.
64.134.168.97 ( talk) 04:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. I just wanted you to look at it. Still think the bulk of the infobox is not very interesting (doesn't have almanacy things like the height of the Statue of Liberty).
And since the average person has NEVER heard of this crash, a headline makes them "care" more quickly and viscerally. And the "big crash, # dead" is the more quick thing to want to grapple with (to put this mystery term in context), not "in the mountains". Also, that the details of geometry and such fit better within the crash section. And in general, a more fast understood and emotionally compelling picture is more important for a lead, than one that requires a lot of looking at and thinking about (like a two-panel map with geometry of rail lines). Think about what kind of picture would be featured on the front page of the newspaper? A map?? or dead bodies?? If it bleeds, it leads...;-)
And the other moves as discussed. But I'm fine. Just wanted you to look at it. 64.134.168.97 ( talk) 13:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
And for Brer, the intention was pretty clearly to do a "trial" for appearance. Not to drive some revert war crap. You can't assess this stuff without actually making the change and taking a look at it. Ideally giving it a day or so of getting used to it. Anyhoo, the author has at least had a look, so I have reverted. 64.134.168.97 ( talk) 13:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
If you want to re-arrange the pictures and keep the infobox that is an option (I even mentioned it in my first post...of course you'd have to read past the slight bodycheck on golden text. ;-)) I've put a substantial "version B" forward. If you see anything worthwhile, will leave it up to you to implement. (I'm not trying to drive a version...could care less...but to show you something.) If the map formatting or the like gives you a hard time, get MissMJ to help or just look at my revision code and figure it out. Chaka, bra. :-) 64.134.168.97 ( talk) 14:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
You could maybe do something like having the headline up top and the map lower down (within the infobox). Sort of like this:
Arabian Wolf Arabic: ذئب عربي | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
Order: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | |
Subspecies: | C. l. arabs
|
Trinomial name | |
Canis lupus arabs | |
Arabian wolf range |
I'm not crazy about infoboxes since they get long and since they reduce the image size (to fit inside). But in this case, layout "B" had the pics all on the right anyway, so it is basically same thing, but within an infobox. Also, if you consider how the species infoboxes "work", you see that people have an iconic (fast processed) picture of the animal on top and then the map lower down (as it is more detailed reading really, to parse a map). 64.134.168.97 ( talk) 14:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
W: Well...what is it doing for you? Can you explain why you like it? I mean the text fields in there are pretty uninteresting. It's not like a country where you would have some almanac info like population and area and the like.
(and in any case, the template can be tweaked or an alternative used. Don't let the format affect the layout...drive for the reader...and you don't even know that this is a real problem.)
(and the lead is the precis. it is even a "short" lead...one more reason an infobox not needed.)
I put a substantial revision in. If you all like any of it...ball. your side of the court. (your turn.) If you don't want to bother, than maybe the changes are not that compelling. Peace. 64.134.168.97 ( talk) 14:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Another idea: You could put one of the memorial pics in the lead spot. (It is interesting that the TFA used one of them...it needed an iconic graphic.) The rest of the layout as discussed in version B, except put the headline down in the rescue section. (since it concerns casualties.) Still not sure where the train goes, but wedge it in somewhere. 64.134.168.97 ( talk) 15:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Canoe River train crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Canoe River train crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Canoe River train crash is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 21, 2011. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Couple more thoughts, branching off from the FAC comments:
Those are all the notes I have left over from reading through the article. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Updated: 06:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there any specific reason for forcing the image sizes in this article? I can only speak for my self obviously, but the images look disproportionately large on my screen. Doesn't WP:IMGSIZE dictate to not use forced image sizes? -- Eisfbnore • talk 10:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I have obtained a copy of a Canadian National Railways passenger timetable and the distances for places mentioned are:
Station | Miles from Montreal |
---|---|
Jasper | 2395.1 |
Red Pass Junction | 2438.9 |
Jackman (end of ABS signalling) | 2460.6 |
Valemount | 2469.6 |
Cedarside | 2473.5 |
Canoe River | 2478.4 |
Gosnell | 2498.4 |
Blue River | 2527.5 |
Vancouver | 2924.2 |
Reference: Canadian National Railways. Passenger Time Tables: April 28 to October 26, 1957. p. 51. Table 135.
Hope this helps — Iain Bell ( talk) 10:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The part on the bar exam doesn't make much sense. It says the BC bar was notoriously difficult, but then it says it consisted of one simple question. Why was it just one? Did they change it for him or something? -- AW ( talk) 08:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Very important that pictures are relevant to the sections. they are not just "eye candy" to place in the golden text...but really are very powerful methods of communication. That is why AP pays money for stringers to take pics of Green Helmet man and the like.
Anyhow, let me just see what the article looks like with the newspaper up top. The crash map with the crash section. The siding thing with the inquiry. (MUCH better fits for those last two). And the train, I guess under rescue (no good home for it).
The Infobox gone (we could keep it, also, but really not helpful, this is not an "almanac" type of topic).
And getting rid of the L-R alternation (so 2007).
Feel free to revert after. Just want to see what it looks like.
64.134.168.97 ( talk) 04:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. I just wanted you to look at it. Still think the bulk of the infobox is not very interesting (doesn't have almanacy things like the height of the Statue of Liberty).
And since the average person has NEVER heard of this crash, a headline makes them "care" more quickly and viscerally. And the "big crash, # dead" is the more quick thing to want to grapple with (to put this mystery term in context), not "in the mountains". Also, that the details of geometry and such fit better within the crash section. And in general, a more fast understood and emotionally compelling picture is more important for a lead, than one that requires a lot of looking at and thinking about (like a two-panel map with geometry of rail lines). Think about what kind of picture would be featured on the front page of the newspaper? A map?? or dead bodies?? If it bleeds, it leads...;-)
And the other moves as discussed. But I'm fine. Just wanted you to look at it. 64.134.168.97 ( talk) 13:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
And for Brer, the intention was pretty clearly to do a "trial" for appearance. Not to drive some revert war crap. You can't assess this stuff without actually making the change and taking a look at it. Ideally giving it a day or so of getting used to it. Anyhoo, the author has at least had a look, so I have reverted. 64.134.168.97 ( talk) 13:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
If you want to re-arrange the pictures and keep the infobox that is an option (I even mentioned it in my first post...of course you'd have to read past the slight bodycheck on golden text. ;-)) I've put a substantial "version B" forward. If you see anything worthwhile, will leave it up to you to implement. (I'm not trying to drive a version...could care less...but to show you something.) If the map formatting or the like gives you a hard time, get MissMJ to help or just look at my revision code and figure it out. Chaka, bra. :-) 64.134.168.97 ( talk) 14:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
You could maybe do something like having the headline up top and the map lower down (within the infobox). Sort of like this:
Arabian Wolf Arabic: ذئب عربي | |
---|---|
Scientific classification | |
Kingdom: | |
Phylum: | |
Class: | |
Order: | |
Family: | |
Genus: | |
Species: | |
Subspecies: | C. l. arabs
|
Trinomial name | |
Canis lupus arabs | |
Arabian wolf range |
I'm not crazy about infoboxes since they get long and since they reduce the image size (to fit inside). But in this case, layout "B" had the pics all on the right anyway, so it is basically same thing, but within an infobox. Also, if you consider how the species infoboxes "work", you see that people have an iconic (fast processed) picture of the animal on top and then the map lower down (as it is more detailed reading really, to parse a map). 64.134.168.97 ( talk) 14:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
W: Well...what is it doing for you? Can you explain why you like it? I mean the text fields in there are pretty uninteresting. It's not like a country where you would have some almanac info like population and area and the like.
(and in any case, the template can be tweaked or an alternative used. Don't let the format affect the layout...drive for the reader...and you don't even know that this is a real problem.)
(and the lead is the precis. it is even a "short" lead...one more reason an infobox not needed.)
I put a substantial revision in. If you all like any of it...ball. your side of the court. (your turn.) If you don't want to bother, than maybe the changes are not that compelling. Peace. 64.134.168.97 ( talk) 14:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Another idea: You could put one of the memorial pics in the lead spot. (It is interesting that the TFA used one of them...it needed an iconic graphic.) The rest of the layout as discussed in version B, except put the headline down in the rescue section. (since it concerns casualties.) Still not sure where the train goes, but wedge it in somewhere. 64.134.168.97 ( talk) 15:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Canoe River train crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Canoe River train crash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)