# Talk:Cymmer Colliery explosion

@SchreiberBike: Hi, here is the Cymmer disaster draft FYI. Comments/suggestions welcome. :) RLO1729 (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You are writing articles at a great pace and I doubt there will be too much work to take them to good article status, but that's something I don't have much experience with.
Some notes:
I rewrote a little around the word collier, because I was only familiar with that word as a kind of ship.
Thanks. RLO1729 (talk)
Similar around "true bill" because I didn't know what that meant.
What about just linking "true bill" to "indictment"? RLO1729 (talk)
That works too, if that's a common UK term. But, the term "true bill" doesn't appear on the Indictment page, so that might leave the reader confused. As a term that's not common today, I'd think it should be explained in the text or another term used. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 
I think it makes sense to add the information from James Harvey Insole to this article about the £500 contribution and the cost of 30 graves.
I wondered whether to do this but wanted to maintain some distinction between the information presented in each article, so kept the more specific JHI items with that page. RLO1729 (talk)
Some repetition is inevitable, and without that it seems like Insole was completely unresponsive. I suspect that £500 and 30 graves is still pretty unresponsive, but that depends on the context of the time. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 
Both here and at James Harvey Insole, it might help to add some context to the costs, perhaps in terms of how that compared to a worker's pay at that time or what it means in 2020 after inflation.
I'll investigate in terms of worker's pay, but I've avoided using modern value equivalents as they go out of date. I thought that people can look up modern equivalents elsewhere if they wanted to know. RLO1729 (talk)
There's {{Inflation}}, which gives "equivalent to £59,020 in 2023" or "equivalent to £63,559 in 2023". I don't know which inflation measure is more meaningful and I'm not sure if that's helpful or not. The amount seems small. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 
Did your research show that the disaster had any impact on trade unions or organized labour?
I'll investigate. RLO1729 (talk)
I think the rest of the edits I made are fairly clear. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Very helpful, as always! I've also gone back and used some of your link edits here in the JHI article.
I'll move the "mine ventilation" link (thanks) to the lead section. Also, the " – 'The Cymer Widows' and Orphans' Fund'. " is part of the quote rather than the source. It was the "public charity". I'll reinstate it as " – [i.e.] 'The Cymer Widows' and Orphans' Fund'. " to try to make that clearer (let me know if you have a better idea). Thanks again! RLO1729 (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Good on "The Cymer Widows' and Orphans' Fund". That had me confused; the double quotes, single quotes and apostrophes make it hard to decipher. Thanks again for the barnstar! SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I assessed this as C-class to get the ball rolling, as it was previously unassessed even though a candidate for Good Article status. May I suggest someone uses the B-class criteria to check if it could be promoted to B as the next step? It certainly seems to be a worthy article, but I am not experienced in detailed assessments. welsh (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Great, thanks Welsh! RLO1729 (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cymmer Colliery explosion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 00:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Here we go again, I am interested in this article after the James Harvey Insole's article. As with that article, I will save both of our time by making minor tweaks to links, cite order, commas and provide the diffs to you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again!  ~ RLO1729💬 00:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


### Intro, infobox, and Background
A few links were added, a punctuation change, and a cite order fix were made here
Thanks, though I would like to revisit the additional comma in light of my reply in the George Insole review please.  ~ RLO1729💬
That's fine. I would work on consistency in approach throughout and across the three articles, instead of sometimes using a comma and sometimes not.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The intro does not quite summarize this article, it would be great to have more information about the cause (company management/block quote), inquest, trial, and ramifications of the explosion.
Agreed, I've revised the Intro.  ~ RLO1729💬
You did a great job! I added two links - one of which is a red link (Mines Regulation Act of 1860) until I work on the article tonight.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
You don't need citations in the intro unless there is some sort of claim - or the content is not included in the body of the article. See WP:CITELEAD.
Agreed, except for the quoted text. As the remaining referencing is minimal I would prefer to leave them as is even if not completely necessary.  ~ RLO1729💬
I get it and often feel the same way. Some are sticklers for no citations in the intro unless needed for a claim, etc. I have had to remove them for my GA articles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
It would be nice to have the author for the quote in the Background section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with including the source explicitly in the side quoteboxes as they are less directly connected with the text. However, I'd suggest that in normal academic writing it would be more usual to not include the author after an in-text quote (even a longer, indented quote as in this case) as it detracts from the flow of the text and, if desired, the author can be found readily by consulting the citation.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
On reflection, I've named the author prior to the quote.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Sure, that works!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I find it much more distracting not to have the author. It makes me stop reading to try to figure out the context and perspective... when I otherwise would continue reading the article. But, this is not something that affects whether or not the article passes. It is a suggestion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
This section is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


### Explosion
I added one link to the caption for the image.
Thanks.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I have no other comments or suggestions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


### Inquest
No suggestions
The collapsible table is very cool! I am going to figure out how you did that!–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
:)   ~ RLO1729💬


### Trial
Suggestion: Author for the second quote, which I am guessing by the wording before the third quote is Lewis. Or, please clarify who Lewis is for the third quote.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The second quote is from a contemporary newspaper article.  ~ RLO1729💬
I see that you used "Welsh historian E. D. Lewis" in the Background section, but you have been using full names throughout the article. My suggestion is just to add E. D. to his name in this section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I generally use full name first then only surname thereafter, but have added initials here as you suggest for clarity.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yep, and I was going for consistency. For instance, there are six instances, for "Jabez Thomas" and the surname only used once, where his full name is in the same sentence. I could be missing something, but in this article, I think full names were used throughout.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for picking that up. The multiple use of Jabez has grown during various edits (including the recent lead section update) without me noticing - now corrected. I think the only other multiple use of forename (other than as required by direct quotes) is to distinguish people with the same surname mentioned in the same sentence.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
RLO1729, My point wasn't that it was a problem. You have been using full names throughout. It was just an example. Please note that there are two men with the surname of Thomas in this article. We were fine after you added E.D. to Lewis. I was just explaining that I was going for consistency. Sorry to take this off-track.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I returned the first names for Jabez. Sorry for creating confusion. This section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't agree that full names are being used throughout, only where necessary to avoid confusion. Removing "Jabez" where I did made the article more consistent in terms of "full name first, surname afterwards". There are a number of people with surname Thomas mentioned in the article but qualifying the surname where necessary, such as "mine manager Thomas", and the context made sure there was no confusion as to which person was meant at each stage in the article. So I don't see that the reversion of these edits was necessary. Nevertheless, ultimately a minor point.  ~ RLO1729💬 23:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I feel like there is contention and I am sorry if I have done anything to make you feel defensive. You have done great work. We just see things differently.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


### Survivors
I added a link and moved the close paren, assuming that the references apply to the entire image caption.
They can do, so thanks.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
No other comments or suggestions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


### Legacy
I added two links and fixed one cite order here. One of the links is a red link for an article I may write.
Thanks. As we haven't named the other pieces of legislation in the lead section, I'd prefer to leave specific mention of the 1860 Act to just the Legacy section.  ~ RLO1729💬
Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
There are missing citations in this section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
The citation after the colon in the opening line of the section is intended to cover all of the "following events".  ~ RLO1729💬 03:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmmmm. That would make sense if there were no other citations used. I think it would be best to add the citation to anything that is not cited. What will it hurt?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it is clear from the placement of the citation after "following events" that it refers to each of the events in the list, even if the first item has an additional citation within its text. The only other citation in the list is from the same source to give a page number for the quote. The alternative is to repeat [3] at the end of each item in the list, six times, which seems redundant.  ~ RLO1729💬 04:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
This section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


### GA criteria
#### Comments
Another great job. I really like the intro now! The only thing that is a key issue is adding citations to the Legacy section

Covered in reply now in Legacy section above.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I take the need to provide supporting citations very seriously, so for the record here I would add that all points in the Legacy section were always covered by at least one citation and citations were not missing as stated in the Review comments.  ~ RLO1729💬 23:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, RLO1729, I understand that your intention and approach is good and comes with the best intentions. That makes your articles easy to review! I think we just have different opinions about how to make that clear to the readers. And, from the number of UK articles I have reviewed, edited and written (e.g. Cornwall mines and artists, UK stained glass artists and sculptors)—I think that there are some differences in approach, grammer, and punctuation. And, it is okay that we have different opinions and I want you to ensure that you are identifying which suggestions would go against UK norms. I am sorry if I offended you, that absolutely was not my intention.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Did you read the comment under the GA criteria table? I thought I explained there that the items in the list were cited as a group.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks CaroleHenson - not offended and I have appreciated your very helpful reviews, just wishing to counteract the comment of "There are missing references in the Legacy section" which still appears very prominently in the Review Comments section and would be misunderstood by readers who do not go into the details of the discussion, even with the additional comment in that section.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Ahhhhhhh. I struck that out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
— and please see the comment about copyvio in the table. The other few points are suggestions / food for thought.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The copyvio section of the GA criteria table says Pending and not what I typed. So, I am pasting what I typed here:
Please see this copy vio report. It appears that the information about the injured parties was copy and pasted. I am guessing that this newspaper is in the public domain now, since it was published in 1856. (In the U.S., the dividing line is 1923) Is that so? Otherwise, I am not finding any issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the information in the table is taken directly from the public domain newspaper cited in the table heading.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I had not realized earlier that there were "Further reading" items in the "See also" section. See MOS:SEEALSO and MOS:FURTHER. I created a Further reading section and moved the items that were not wikilinks to that section.
I have passed this article. It was really interesting, especially the "Legacy" section. Thanks so much for creating it!–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Gravestone is missing |alt=
The alt= is at the very end of the File link wikitext.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
File:Cymmer_Colliery,_Porth,_Rhondda_Valley_(4641247).jpg has a tag for author's life + 100, but credits a photographer who died in 1936
Copyright tags updated.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Info at File:Cymmer_Colliery,_Porth,_Rhondda_Valley_(4641247).jpg gives English, c. 1905; so PD-US-expired and PD-old-70 tags used per commons:Help:Public_domain. Also, The National Library of Wales website source of the image shows the licence as Public Domain Mark 1.0 CC-Public Domain Mark 1.0  ~ RLO1729💬 02:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
1905 appears to be the creation date, not the publication date. It's PD in the UK but we need to verify publication date for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
A cropped version of the image was published in Sixty-One Views of the Rhondda Valley (one of a series of similar publications), unfortunately undated. However, photographer Ridley was known to have been at the Bournemouth address shown by 1903 and it is reasonable to assume that, as a professional photographer, he would have published the collection of views as soon as possible after their creation, i.e c. 1905, well within the US cut-off year of 1925. While not absolutely certain of publication date, I have seen the "reasonable to assume" argument used with respect to other Commons images. Do I remove the image?  ~ RLO1729💬 07:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
No matter the outcome of this discussion, your point raises the broader concern of the 100s of Ridley images currently on Commons with the wrong (100 year) local copyright tag and no US copyright tag. Should this be raised elsewhere?  ~ RLO1729💬 07:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Probably best to raise that at Commons. This source confirms that booklet was published in 1905, so we can just add that source information to this image's description and we should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikitext comment noting this source added to the image summary.  ~ RLO1729💬 12:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
"dismissed two experienced firemen and appointed two others from outside the colliery". Three firemen were charged - do those three include these two? How many firemen generally were employed?
According to FN3, this colliery employed three firemen in 1856. The two fireman that were the centre of the 1854 strike were replaced in 1855 so played no part in the disaster.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Suggest clarifying this in the text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This detail now included as a note; text in Inquest revised to indicate all mine officials were charged (also implying the colliery had three firemen in 1856).  ~ RLO1729💬 02:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
"apart from the collier who died later of burns, all the deaths were the result of "suffocation" - but the table lists several people as burnt and not suffocated?
The inquest determined the official causes of death but the table lists the information as reported by the newspaper which seems to have incorporated details from other sources and which was compiled before the inquest finished.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
On review, the additional information probably came from the inquest: At the inquest "[the colliery doctor] revealed that of the 114 who died, 15 were burnt badly, 21 slightly burned, 5 were bruised and 73 were suffocated, but with the exception of one who died from the effects of burns, the death of all the others was to be attributed to suffocation".(FN3 p.138)  ~ RLO1729💬 06:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Does "reported order" in the table refer to order of death or order listed in the report?
The order as listed in the newspaper.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure this is significant enough to warrant inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
On opening the table, the order is as reported in the newspaper. This ordering is important as it groups families. If the table is re-ordered, say, by surname, the reported order column provides the functionality to return to the original order without having to reload the webpage.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
...wouldn't ordering by surname also group families? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Not usefully, as different families have the same surname. When using the table myself, I have found it helpful to be able to go between the various views and return to the original view without leaving the table. I recommend retaining this aspect of the table's functionality.  ~ RLO1729💬 05:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Is it known why the officials were charged specifically with the death of William Thomas?
I'm not a legal expert but my understanding is that while the inquest verdict covered all the deaths, the trial indictment had to be specific so the precise manner in which the death occurred could be examined. Each death would also need a separate indictment/trial but there was no point having multiple trials when only one would do to obtain a verdict. Evidence given at the inquest indicates William Thomas (19) and his brother (13) were probably closest to the source of the explosion, so probably the first killed. This could well be the reason he was named in the indictment, but I have no source that states this specifically.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Added a note re William Thomas.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Is any more known about why the judge felt the matter should not have come to court?
Nothing more specific than the quote in the article that "he was a jealous advocate of the prisoners at the bar". It might be assumed that this was because the interests of business owners (rich people) were generally more important to him than those of the workers, but none of my sources goes this far.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"presence of huge crowds (estimated at 15,000 people)" - possible to contextualize this more? What was the local population at the time?
The population of Cymmer/Porth had increased substantially in the first half of the 19th century due to the introduction of mining in the area but I do not have specific figures for the mid-1850s.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"However gross may have been the neglect which caused the husband's death" - this reads as if referring to a specific person, is it known who and why?
The expression is a literary device referring to any husband who was killed.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
What is meant by "a song was patronised"?
It implies that Mrs Insole (as a patron) commissioned the composer and, presumably, contributed towards the cost of printing etc.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Suggest rephrasing, as I don't think the average reader would interpret correctly. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Revised text and added link to clarify.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
"In 1857, following another gas explosion at the colliery in the previous December" - suggest reordering this to mention a second explosion first
Done.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
"it was safer and cheaper to provide colliers with safety lamps" - I'm assuming cheaper than naked flame, but worth being explicit
It is probably more that fewer explosions meant less production time/money being lost due to the mine being closed, the cost of replacing damaged equipment, the need to recruit replacement miners, etc. However, the source does not specify this and I would prefer not to go further than the source.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The explosion did not kill all of the workers - is this because not all had entered the mine, or were any rescued alive beyond the one who died later?
The text "there was an explosion of gas near the mine entrance which trapped the colliers already deeper in the mine" is intended to indicate that not all had entered far enough to be trapped.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Footnote 6 is missing page numbers
This source is a book; I would not normally give the number of pages in a book citation, is it required?  ~ RLO1729💬 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Generally yes. It would be appropriate to not include page numbers if the whole book were the relevant citation - eg. "X was described by a 2007 book" could reasonably be cited to that whole book - but the cited material here is more specific. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Relevant page numbers from book now given in-text.  ~ RLO1729💬 02:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Generally the article relies quite heavily on publications from the time - has there been any more recent commentary on the disaster? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Much was written at the time, with commentary in newspapers and official reports; Lewis' book and peer-reviewed articles are the authoritative modern sources and the disaster also appears in The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales (listed in Further reading).  ~ RLO1729💬 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I've added another modern (1997) source to Further reading; it covers the same ground and sources so citing it seemed superfluous, but it provides additional support for notability if required.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Many thanks for these very helpful comments and suggestions. Some initial responses above, I will work through the rest over the next day.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Remaining items addressed above. :)  ~ RLO1729💬 06:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Cymmer Colliery explosion

It can be very bruising when a nomination gets knocked back, but SandyGeorgia is correct that this is often the swiftest, and safest, way to FA status. I haven't looked at your changes since you pinged me, but will try to tomorrow - RL permitting. I have a lot of experience of assisting first time nominators through FAC and would be happy to work on this article; and goodness knows that you are not going to get better support than SG and Nikkimaria. I will try to get my initial thoughts down tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog, if you will ping me when you are done, I will go through ... do not want to get in your way. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  22:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Further input from me on hold per message on my talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the offers to help. I record here my deep disappointment and dissatisfaction with this FAC process, which should represent the highest standards of review. Instead, a reviewer's initial decision to oppose was based on a list of items including some that were helpful and immediately implemented, but a number that were readily shown to be incorrect and others that were merely cosmetic suggestions. All items were addressed within a day but the FAC discussion was terminated abruptly by another editor before the revisions could be considered by the original or other reviewers, and well before the original reviewer's timescale to "get them satisfactorily sorted within, say, a week" had expired. My contributions demonstrate my careful consideration of editorial criticism and my willingness to work constructively with others to improve Wikipedia. The article was considered FAC ready by a very experienced editor. Whether or not the article still needed additional work, this FAC process has not demonstrated a correspondingly careful attention to detail or respected Wikipedia's common conventions of review and response.  ~ RLO1729💬 01:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

If you decide to take this to FAC again, I too would be interested in helping where I can.  I'm sorry to see that you're frustrated with the review; all I can say is that FAC is always under two contradictory tensions -- one to help and improve, in order to promote; the other to remove nominations that are unlikely to get to consensus, in order to speed up the page.  The important thing is to make the article the best it can be: the bronze star is just a badge that says others agree that's so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Just a contextual note: the editor who closed the discussion is one of the coordinators for the FAC process. There has been a push at FAC talk recently for the coordinators to be more aggressive in archiving nominations which likely contributed to the decision. I understand your frustration with that call, but it's definitely not a reflection on you personally. I'm happy to see that although the initial outcome was disappointing the number of experienced FAC contributors who've offered to help is likely to lead to a stronger nom if/when you decide to renominate. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The background info is appreciated. In the hope Wikipedia will improve its processes, I simply note that (mis-)application by a single editor of some "push" discussed somewhere, without obtaining consensus among editors and with no possibility of review or reversion, is hardly the Wikipedia way. It is certainly not the way to keep productive editors or encourage them to continue improving articles to FA standard. The experience has left me with no confidence in the FAC review process or its administration, which I suggest need urgent review.  ~ RLO1729💬 06:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Because this is not an article issue, I suggest discussion continue at User talk:Ealdgyth, FAC Coordinator.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  15:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)