Talk:Vaal Reefs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Zaian (talk). Self-nominated at 18:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Vaal Reefs; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: No - Not done
Overall: @Zaian: This is just barely past the 1500 character minumum. Some more expansion would be appreciated – though since Vaal Reefs is short and half its length is the disaster, I don't even think this needs a separate article and that one can easily be 5x expanded as well. Either way, several sources have information that ought to be included, such as the immediate emergency response, organizational responses, and the findings of the investigation.

  • Sources 5 and 6 are duplicate and source 4's link does not work, so it seems this was lazily copied from from Vaal Reefs without checking those sources.
  • Please clarify what "operating at 56 level" means
  • I see that some sources use both 104 and 105 as the count, but you cannot use just 104 in the lead but then "104 or 105" in the infobox...surely you can find the official accident report that'll say which is right.

Your hook is longer than 200 characters, so if the above is addressed here's a more concise ALT1: ... that 104 miners were killed in the 1995 Vaal Reefs mining disaster when a locomotive fell on an elevator, making it history's deadliest elevator disaster? Reywas92Talk 01:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this very useful review, I have addressed the duplicate references and broken references, and added a section about the investigation which I will expand further (Edit - and also the accident response). I have added a footnote about the number of fatalities, which is given as 104 or 105 in different sources, but 104 seems to be more reliable. I haven't found a definitive source such as the accident report. Zaian (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great improvements. Reywas92Talk 18:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaian and Reywas92: One section is still tagged, also I am not sure if we need to qualify the statement in the hook as the source states: "Guinness Book of World Records' worst elevator tragedy." Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]