Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Moorgate tube crash/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Moorgate tube crash

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

The Moorgate tube crash was a horrific crash on the London Underground in which 43 people died and 74 were injured. The train, at the height of rush hour, failed to stop at the platform, and continued at full speed into a dead-end tunnel, where it piled into a solid wall. The front three cars of the train were concertinaed into the size of two. It took 13 hours to free the casualties and a further four days to extract the last body. No technical problems were found, and driver-error was the conclusion of the subsequent investigation; no explanation has been established for the driver's action. This article has been through a complete re-write recently and any and all comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

edit

This has been tough reading and must have been truly painful to write. Only a few comments:

  • Crash
    • The last sentences of the second paragraph have a lot of "days" in them. If you rejig "external examinations were being held in the school on that day which meant a day's holiday for the pupils" on the lines of "the pupils had a day's holiday as the school was in use for external examinations", and drop the last two words of the last sentence it will do the trick.
  • Rescue
    • At the end of the first para I slightly quarrel with "St Barts" – in my experience the hospital is either called "St Bartholomew's" or abbreviated to just "Barts" with no "St". I see the WP article concurs.
  • Investigation and inquiry
    • "She added 'there are so many unknown factors here that it isn't difficult to be precise and definite..." Surely she said it is difficult, not isn't?
    • "On 19 March a memorial service was held St Paul's Cathedral" – needs either an “in” or an at; I wasn’t sure which you’d prefer so have not added one.
    • In the concluding block quote, just checking that "no sufficient evidence" is right rather than "not sufficient evidence"
  • Memorials
    • The text says Finsbury Square; the caption says Finsbury Circus. The text is correct.
  • Sources
    • At that time HMSO’s publications division (for which I worked in the 1970s) was based in London, and you may safely add that as the location in the citation.

That's all I can find. A fine article. Thank you for making it so. Tim riley talk 18:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BB

edit

An unflinching account of this dismal story. I have a few comments/suggestions:

Crash
  • "he appeared to be in his normal temperament" reads somewhat ponderously. "...his behaviour appeared normal"?
  • I have some problems with timing, as described at the beginning of the second paragraph: "The first return trips of the day between Drayton Park and Moorgate, which started at 6:40 am, passed without incident. Robert Harris, the 18-year-old guard who had only started working for London Underground in August 1974, was late and joined the train when it returned to Moorgate at 6:53 am." This suggests that the return trip Moorgate→Drayton Park→Moorgate was accomplished in 13 minutes, which with 10 stops and a turnround seems highly unlikely. I note that the fatal final one-way journey took 8 minutes. (also, should "trips" be singular?)
    Will check the sources on this one. - SchroCat (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend you increase the image size to upright 1.6 or 1.8.. Too small at present.
Rescue
Clearing up
  • The words "that they were unable to use previously" are implied earlier in the sentence and are therefore redundant.
Investigation
  • "halted after a day and a half" – I'm not sure that "halted" is the best word here. As I read it, the investigation was briefly paused before being resumed; "halted" implies terminated.
  • "The coroner stated that he was unhappy..." could be simply "The coroner was unhappy..."
  • MoS I believe disapproves of beginning sentences with numerics ("61 witnesses..." etc)
  • "McNaughton published his report on 4 March 1976" – hardly, since he only began work on 13 March. Possibly April?
    The report is dated "4th March 1976" at the top of page 2 (page 3 in the PDF scanned copy). It may be a typo for 14th March or 24th March - or even for 4th May. The date will be that when McNaughton submitted the report to the Ministry; publication need not have been on the same day. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dating the report nine days before the enquiry began is obviously a source error and complete nonsense, and this needs to be sorted out in the article. Let's hear what the main editor has to say. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Morning all, I'll go over the other edits shortly (RL is a little hectic at the moment), but I knew this would cause confusion. Mcnaughton opened his enquiry on 13 March 1975; he reported just under a year later on 4 March '76. Any suggestions as to how to clarify without over-egging the point would be most welcome. Thanks to you both – SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for not noticing the year difference! i've add a small clarification into the text. Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • "The last London Underground services ran into Moorgate on 4 October 1975..." Eh? This can only refer to the Northern City Line, not as implied to the whole Underground.
Moorgate protection

That's about it. Onwards to FAC I think. Brianboulton (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Brian (and Red Rose); I've corrected all, except where commented on above and the one point on timings, which I shall look into further. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Moorgate_tube_crash/archive1&oldid=1138563987"