Talk:Oaks explosion

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 12, 2016, December 12, 2017, December 12, 2018, December 12, 2021, and December 12, 2022.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Oaks explosion is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire 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.

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.

oversight

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

is it meant..."341 of the 360 working that day" ? or perhaps "340 of the 361"...

'The first explosion killed 361 miners of the 340' Bloody stupid oversight! Correct it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Please read carefully before making intemperate comments: "340 working below ground in the first explosion (with six survivors) and 27 rescuers" Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Further attempts

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The numbers don't quite add up. The article states "All except Sugden were lifted out in six trips of the cage" but then in Oversight states that 27 rescuers died. Now Jeffcock & Brown were clearly still down at the time of the second explosion and Jeffcock went down after the six trips of the cage, Sugden may have still been down and Minto talked to Tewart underground. Did more rescuers go down? Were they killed at the pithead?Julian D (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, and 6*15 doesn't equal 100 either. Jeffcock covers this, I'll go through the source in more detail this evening. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Copy edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I found the quality of this article good for a niche topic. I made a few small changes, such as changing the capitalization of the numbered shafts to "No. 1" and "No. 2" (not "no. 1"). Also, I rephrased a sentence that ended in "the bottle was removed!" — somehow the exclamation mark seemed unencyclopedic.

The article uses a lot of technical mining terms. They are explained in line or with notes. Generally, overly technical language is to be avoided (see WP:JARGON), but in this case I think the technical terms are appropriate and maybe even necessary. Roches (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic