Talk:Coal Glen mine disaster

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).

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: North Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

Occupational Safety and Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mining Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

I will take this one, comments to follow in due course. Zawed (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Zawed: ? -Indy beetle (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

- 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)Reply

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)Reply

Looks good, passing as GA as I believe this meets the necessary criteria. Zawed (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic