Talk:Coal Glen mine disaster
Appearance
Coal Glen mine disaster has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 14, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Coal Glen mine disaster/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 09:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I will take this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
This is looking in very good order, minimal nitpicks.
Lead
- but the true death toll may be higher. : could be me, but "true" seems to imply that the authorities were lying. Perhaps "actual" may be a better term to use?
- Done.
Background
- The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph is quite long with several commas, suggest breaking it up.
- Split and slightly revised.
Explosions
- At about 9:30 a.m. on May 27, 1925 the...: comma after 1925 I think?
- Done.
Response and effects
- It arrived in Raleigh the following day.: where is Raleigh relative to the mine site, link if possible too?
- Working on this. The car apparently made it all the way to Coal Glen (news article), and once I find a source discussing its arrival there there will be little need to mention its stop in Raleigh.
- Resolved, the car came to Coal Glen on May 28.
Legacy
- Doing the source checks, ref 27 says there were a couple of fatalities after the mine reopened and ref 28 says 14; is this worth mentioning?
Sources
- The print sources appear to be reputable publishers, and the journal ref is associated with a university
- Did a spotcheck on refs 1, 24, 27 and 28, and these look fine
Other stuff
- Image tags OK
- No dupe links
That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Indy Beetle, just checking in on the progress of this. It is my understanding you are still working on this? Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry yes I'll get on it, these past few days have been busier than I anticipated. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- No worries, I appreciate that my chase up was somewhat ironic given the length of time it took for me to review the article to begin with! Zawed (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Looks good, passing as GA as I believe this meets the necessary criteria. Zawed (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- History good articles
- GA-Class Disaster management articles
- Low-importance Disaster management articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- GA-Class North Carolina articles
- Low-importance North Carolina articles
- WikiProject North Carolina articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class Occupational Safety and Health articles
- Low-importance Occupational Safety and Health articles
- WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health articles
- GA-Class Mining articles
- Low-importance Mining articles
- WikiProject Mining articles