# Talk:Somerset Coalfield

Having added a stratigraphically arranged list of coal seams, based on information portrayed on BGS 50K geological map sheet 281, I have attempted to integrate similar info from neighbouring sheet 280 but there are some differences which arise presumably from the age of the maps, or more accurately form the date at which the surveys were made and the sequence accorded names. Thus the Little Course or Little Coal is to be found at the boundary of the upper and middle Coal Measures and the Great Course within the upper Coal Measures on the older sheet (280) but both are within the Middle Coal Measues on the later sheet (281). Geopersona (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for these, however for someone with little knowledge of geology (eg me) or someone who doesn't know the area, would it be possible to clarify where these are eg by linking them with the basins listed or saying how deep they run?— Rod talk 19:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Happy to expand on what I've put in, if the info is available out there - let's see! cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Have added further detail of stratigraphy but more work required to get geology section in better shape yet. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks that is helping me make sense of them.— Rod talk 07:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The note on the Writhlington Collieries says "In 1896 [14] they were owned by Writhlington, Huish and Foxcote Colliery Co." but the table shows the Kilmersdon and Braysdown collieries being owned by other companies on that date.  This should be tidied up.  Diomedea Exulans (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe what is in the Notes column of the table accurately reflects the data in the source cited. Are you referring to this or to the text above the table? How would you suggest wording it?— Rod talk 14:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just pointing this out.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.111.4.52 (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 

Thanks - can you be specific about which ones? The template {{deadlink}} can be used next to the relevant citations to indicate this.— Rod talk 17:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I've now fixed all but one of the deadlinks I can find.— Rod talk 10:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I was rather surprised to see a mention of explosions in Somerset early in the article. I know little of Somerset coal, but I do know of the problems from this cause in NE England, and also that the Bristol coalfield was relatively free of this - to the point where Bristol miners could use exposed carbide lamps.
Presumably then, the geology of Bristol's coal is quite distinct from Somerset's? Despite their close proximity on the surface, this geology means that the business of coal mining must have been quite different to carry out. Is it worth expanding this? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes this is probably worthy of more expansion, particularly with the Norton Hill explosion which (partly) led to mine regulation. I'm currently reading this article which talks about using fires to remove stale air! and may have more later.— Rod talk 12:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's a good reference for the disaster at Midsomer Norton, http://www.cmhrc.co.uk/cms/document/1908_10.pdf page 16. Interesting as I though all collieries had to have two shafts to ventilate the workings, not only for firedamp. It appears to be an explosion of coaldust. Lot of info about the pit here too. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Following the Peer review and some really useful copy editing, what else do people think is needed on this article before a possible GA nomination?— Rod talk 20:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a bit more pruning on transport and Smith (who has a ODNB entry). All those sections need references and possibly a bit of filling out re the pits.:-) J3Mrs (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd be happy for you to prune away. I don't think I have an ODNB account so could you add that? I will add some more on the collieries when I get some time.— Rod talk 22:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason this map [1] has not been used?J3Mrs (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I took that photo of a map in the museum, and although I had verbal permission to use it on wikipedia I was worried about copyright status. It has been cleaned up from the original but still has no indication of scale or what direction north is in - all things I've seen maps criticised for in the past. We could use it but it might be better to ask a map expert represent the same information on a new map.— Rod talk 19:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I've put a request in at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop#Mines of the Somerset Coalfield as map making is beyond me and my software.— Rod talk 20:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, I didn't add it as I don't understand copyright. It is useful though, explaining where the clusters of pits were so I hope someone decides to help. It is an interesting article I wish I could get on with the Lancashire Coalfield but I've run out of steam and resources recently.J3Mrs (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Somerset Coalfield/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 17:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

From a first read through, seems a good article, good use of images, which are all appropriately licensed. However, there were a few minor points;

Ideally the lead should not contain material not listed elsewhere, nor have citations - could you move/copy the sentence regarding the toal area of the coalfield to another appropriate place within the article?
I have copied this to the start of the geology section.— Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Reference 7 is a dead link, as are references 8, 9, 58, 62, 67, 77, 78, and 81.
I think I've fixed all of these.— Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Reference 2 may cover all of the "Structure" sub-section, but this needs to be made clear, or an alternative source found.
resued.— Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Similar for the "Stratigraphy".
Ref reused.— Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the "Area Today" section has no reference.
Refs added.— Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the "Paulton Basin" section has no reference.
Ref reused.— Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the "East of Camerton" section has no reference.
Ref reused.— Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the "Writhlington Collieries" section needs to have more references - as above, this may just be repeating the one at the end of the paragraph.
Refs reused & new ref added.— Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 17:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. It is amazing how quickly deadlinks creep in as I checked all of these a couple of months ago when I nominated it. I hope I've addressed the queries, but if there is anything else you think is needed please let me know.— Rod talk 19:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
B. MoS compliance: 
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

So that is about it. Congratulations.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Somerset Coalfield. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715060710/http://www.pdmhs.com/1896%20Lists/1896-68.htm to http://www.pdmhs.com/1896%20Lists/1896-68.htm
Added archive https://archive.is/20130505062905/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/disaster-changed-mining/story-11286280-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/disaster-changed-mining/story-11286280-detail/story.html
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)