Talk:Bradford Colliery/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Choess (talk · contribs · count) 00:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've added some general notes up here which mostly apply to criterion 1b.

In the 3rd paragraph of the lead, I would move "caused by subsidence" immediately after "Damage," add a comma after "uneconomic".

I don't think that "Damage caused by subsidence to buildings in the area ..." really works, as it's not the buildings that subsided it's the ground on which they were built. Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Early history," the second sentence combines two many locations with vagueness: "between A and B near C". Can you just say that the branch was between Lock 6 and Lock 7 (Beswick Top Lock)? And be consistent in the nomenclature for the locks.

Changed to "A short arm of the canal, now filled in, was built to the colliery from between Lock No. 6 Lock and Lock No. 7, Beswick Lock". Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was Moseley (I presume the 1st baronet, d. 1751?) the lessor or lessee of the mineral rights? It isn't clear.

Mosley was the lessor, now clarified. Malleus Fatuorum 19:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Thomas Livesey" of 1856 the of "Clegg and Livesey" in 1840? If so, it might be more informative to name him in 1840 and say that he had become sole owner in 1856.

Thinking about this, the relevant point is that the first deep shaft was sunk in 1840, not who then owned the colliery, so I've changed the sentence accordingly: "The first shaft for a deep colliery was sunk in 1840." Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the last sentence of "Early history," "mitigate the effects" seems to me a bit vague. I'd find it preferable to say something like "to provide cheaper coal to its members". The lack of a purchase date is also noticeable: this reference gives 1900.

I've added 1900 as the year of the purchase. The Times article cited says this: "They had had very high prices for coal; they had mitigated the effect, because some 18 months ago they acquired the Bradford Colliery, from which they were able to draw supplies, but it did not cover the disadvantages entirely." I think to extrapolate that to "provide cheaper coal to its members" is a step too far. A Times article of 22 May 1900, reporting on the associations annual general meeting, quotes the association as saying "A coal mine [Bradford Colliery] had been acquired during the year. They would be able to use a considerable proportion of the coal got and reap the profits on the rest." In other words, one way in which the purchase of the colliery mitigated the effects on the association's members was to increase the dividend they received, so they could afford to pay the higher prices. Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Expansion", link "coal tar" and "sulphuric acid". Is the claim about "one of the earliest electrical plants" really accurate? I found a reference to an installation at a colliery in Barnsley in 1885.

I've added the links. All the source claims is "one of the earliest electrical plants", which is not incompatible with your finding. Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "Later years," "4000 tons per day" should be specified in long tons and short tons, as with the other measurements in the article. So also with the "three ton mine cars" and, in the next paragraph "200 tons of small coal". "Koepe type" should be hyphenated for consistency with "axial-type" below.

I've added short ton conversions for 4000 tons and 200 tons, but I don't think it makes much sense for "three-ton mine cars", as 3 long tons is 3.36 short tons, i.e., 3 tons to one significant figure. "Koepe-type" now hyphenated. Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the reactivation of the Bradford Fault, mentioned earlier, specifically connected with the Bradford Colliery, or with mining in the Manchester Coalfield in general? If the former, it should be mentioned again in the "Closure" section.

Specifically connected with mining at Bradford Colliery. But although reactivation of the fault caused some damage, it wasn't a reason for the colliery's closure; the problem was the more general one of subsidence damage to buildings in the city of Manchester, unrelated to the fault. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
My ability to check these references is badly limited (wrong side of the pond), but I have found what appears to be a close paraphrase in one of the ones I can access. Compare "The NCB had intended to extend the working seams underneath Collyhurst, Cheetham, and Ancoats, but the attendant risk of yet more subsidence rendered their plans untenable." in the current article with "The expansion plans for Bradford Colliery at the time included working seams below Collyhurst, Cheetham and Ancoats, but with the attendant risk of still more subsidence the NCB had no alternative but to close the colliery." in Lawson & Lindley. Maybe I'm being too picky, but that seems a bit too close for me.

Lead is OK, headings laid out reasonably, images judicious, proper wiki-linking (but vide supra). See minor prose items in list above.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References provided and properly organized. Perhaps expand the mysterious "(mhn)" after "Exeter University" to "Mining History Network"? Online sources seem to be reliable: major news organizations, academic articles or websites, a mining museum. Books look OK. I fixed the ISBN for Davies. To the extent I can access the sources, I don't see any OR; anyway, most of the article is straightforward and factual, with relatively little inference.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I'm not quite sure about the "Incidents" section. Is it more or less comprehensive? If not, it should be clear why these particular incidents are mentioned.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
No problems.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No sign of instability.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Fair use rationale for lead image looks OK. A picture for the "Geology" section would be really helpful, if you could find one, but isn't strictly necessary for GA.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
My biggest concerns right now are the close paraphrase and whether the "Incidents" section is properly representative. I'd appreciate response to the other points, but I'm aware that some of these may simply be questions of taste.

Choess (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a limited number of ways that one fairly short sentence can be rewritten, so I'm not sure I would share your too close paraphrasing concern. However, I've rewritten it to say "The NCB's plans for the colliery included extending the mines beneath Collyhurst, Cheetham, and Ancoats, but the risk of causing yet more subsidence proved to be unacceptable."
OK then. Still curious whether there's any connection between Clegg & Livesey and Thos. Livesey; it looks like the partnership still owned the colliery as of 1854.[1] As far as the incidents section, how common would deaths in the colliery have been during the period? Here in the US, I'd expect coal miners to be dropping like flies, so the death of a single miner wouldn't be noteworthy unless there was something else distinctive about the matter (e.g., the first recorded death at the pit). Choess (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty certain that the Livesey of Clegg and Livesey is Thomas Livesey, but I don't have access to the source, so I'll have to leave that one for J3Mrs to deal with. As for the incidents section, we were looking not to be comprehensive (as you say, pretty much every mine has loads of accidents), but to focus on significant incidents, three or more miners involved for instance, first fatality and so on. I've made a couple of changes to the incidents section to hopefully make that more obvious. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just said above, on reflection it doesn't seem important who owned the colliery in 1840. The significant thing about 1840 is that it was the year the first deep shaft was sunk, so I've amended the text accordingly. Malleus Fatuorum 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. We're good to go, then. Choess (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]