Senghenydd colliery disaster 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 October 14, 2019. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during the " The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help! |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
"Shaw and Thomas moved to the western side, where they found other men, alive but injured, and arranged for them to travel to the surface. Thomas later reported that the view into the western workings "was exactly like looking into a furnace".[54]
Shaw explored what he could of the western workings, before he and some of the survivors began tackling the fire. "
To me it is obvious they had moved to the western side, constant repetition does not make it clearer, it is repetitive, so why not just remove "of the western workings" and join the paragraphs. I don't understand your objection at all. J3Mrs ( talk) 11:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld ( talk · contribs) 09:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Reviewing shortly.♦
Dr. Blofeld
09:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@ SchroCat: it was the lack of comma in "on 14 October 1913 the day firemen descended the pit", something doesn't quite seem right. Is "the day" needed?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@ SchroCat: Review done, looks in good shape!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Dr. Blofeld. All done and dusted bar the final point. I'll have a dig around to try and find the exact coordinates, and an RS to accompany it. Cheers - – SchroCat ( talk) 11:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
So, we have the name of the colliery Senghenydd glossed in running text to explain that in Welsh it is Senghennydd. It's obviously very important to gloss it like this as SchroCat has reverted it back twice. My second compromise to footnote it has been rejected. Could SchroCat or someone else explain why this is vital to have in running text? To me it seems completely useless (it's obvious that it's a Welsh name, and it's only one letter different from the English version) and merely serves to clutter the prose of a fairly decent article. -- The Huhsz ( talk) 10:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics" and many high-quality and comprehensive articles do have a "See also" section. I don't know why you found it rude: it's how things work on WP to put an article back to the previous version. I could have gone in to edit it to put it back, but I've been accused of being sneaky and avoiding signalling to others that it was a revert. Either way, I doubt anyone will be salivating (or any other form of bodily hyperbole), but this isn't "reconfirming that a Welsh place name comes from Welsh", but that there is a slight difference between common English use and original Welsh version. It's nicely supported by reliable sources and isn't out of place to have it where it is. - SchroCat ( talk) 12:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This looks a bit odd to me since, in 1913, there were no new pence, only old pounds, shillings and pence. Surely in 1913 a shilling was worth 12 pennies. But that was worth much more that 12p is worth today? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@ SchroCat: You've twice reverted my edits without offering any substantive explanation other than that "they were poor". Could you please justify, separately for each of the three edits, why you consider them such? Two are just minor grammatical fixes that really don't seem at all controversial, but since you're fighting them, here we are. Sdkb ( talk) 05:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
United Kingdom" to "
United Kingdom's history". The additional "
's history" adds nothing, means nothing. There's no need for the additional words.
In 1981," Although not an error, the addition of the comma is slightly more American than British. Nothing wrong with that, but the article doesn't use the format unless there is a sub-clause after the initial date, so the introduction brought in an inconsistency.
's history" is implicit in the sentence, making the addition superfluous. It is, as it stands, grammatically and factually correct. Again, we will have to agree to disagree on the sub-sections. The "aftermath" is a clear enough title, and the sub-division makes it all rather bitty and overly structured. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Senghenydd colliery disaster 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 October 14, 2019. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during the " The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help! |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
"Shaw and Thomas moved to the western side, where they found other men, alive but injured, and arranged for them to travel to the surface. Thomas later reported that the view into the western workings "was exactly like looking into a furnace".[54]
Shaw explored what he could of the western workings, before he and some of the survivors began tackling the fire. "
To me it is obvious they had moved to the western side, constant repetition does not make it clearer, it is repetitive, so why not just remove "of the western workings" and join the paragraphs. I don't understand your objection at all. J3Mrs ( talk) 11:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld ( talk · contribs) 09:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Reviewing shortly.♦
Dr. Blofeld
09:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@ SchroCat: it was the lack of comma in "on 14 October 1913 the day firemen descended the pit", something doesn't quite seem right. Is "the day" needed?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@ SchroCat: Review done, looks in good shape!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Dr. Blofeld. All done and dusted bar the final point. I'll have a dig around to try and find the exact coordinates, and an RS to accompany it. Cheers - – SchroCat ( talk) 11:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
So, we have the name of the colliery Senghenydd glossed in running text to explain that in Welsh it is Senghennydd. It's obviously very important to gloss it like this as SchroCat has reverted it back twice. My second compromise to footnote it has been rejected. Could SchroCat or someone else explain why this is vital to have in running text? To me it seems completely useless (it's obvious that it's a Welsh name, and it's only one letter different from the English version) and merely serves to clutter the prose of a fairly decent article. -- The Huhsz ( talk) 10:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics" and many high-quality and comprehensive articles do have a "See also" section. I don't know why you found it rude: it's how things work on WP to put an article back to the previous version. I could have gone in to edit it to put it back, but I've been accused of being sneaky and avoiding signalling to others that it was a revert. Either way, I doubt anyone will be salivating (or any other form of bodily hyperbole), but this isn't "reconfirming that a Welsh place name comes from Welsh", but that there is a slight difference between common English use and original Welsh version. It's nicely supported by reliable sources and isn't out of place to have it where it is. - SchroCat ( talk) 12:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This looks a bit odd to me since, in 1913, there were no new pence, only old pounds, shillings and pence. Surely in 1913 a shilling was worth 12 pennies. But that was worth much more that 12p is worth today? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@ SchroCat: You've twice reverted my edits without offering any substantive explanation other than that "they were poor". Could you please justify, separately for each of the three edits, why you consider them such? Two are just minor grammatical fixes that really don't seem at all controversial, but since you're fighting them, here we are. Sdkb ( talk) 05:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
United Kingdom" to "
United Kingdom's history". The additional "
's history" adds nothing, means nothing. There's no need for the additional words.
In 1981," Although not an error, the addition of the comma is slightly more American than British. Nothing wrong with that, but the article doesn't use the format unless there is a sub-clause after the initial date, so the introduction brought in an inconsistency.
's history" is implicit in the sentence, making the addition superfluous. It is, as it stands, grammatically and factually correct. Again, we will have to agree to disagree on the sub-sections. The "aftermath" is a clear enough title, and the sub-division makes it all rather bitty and overly structured. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)