Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Canoe River train crash/archive1

TCO, using entire talk page! (for retention.)

Nice piece (again). You bring alive something from the past. Kudos. Almost more fun than Watching Jeff Gordon wreck another driver on purpose. I guess there is a fascination we have for train wrecks that has created the cliche. Reminds me of the thing in Starman Jones* where the protagonist watches the ring road, not wishing anyone harm, but wanting not to miss something.

I know this is a small piece, but...Ich kann nichts anderas...comments below.

Content

1. I want to know how the track was damaged (or not), how long out of commission, when put back into service. (Not just the upgrades for safety, but the more immediate re-use of the RR.)

It was only a couple of days, I think I saw a mention in the Leader-Post.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. References look good. You've got several books as well as contemparaneous newspaper accounts and then the sources that come up with a Google. I wouldn't expect you to cite the official investigation report or court transcript, but might list as some sort of Further Reading. Or "Archival sources". Just giving name and location would be a service to someone who wants to go deeper.

If I could find a copy, I would. I would love to see a court transcript. I suspect Dief of puffing his own role to make it a better story, he did that kinda thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. I like how you tie this in with Diefenbaker and the aftermath section comes off very nicely to make this whole thing matter more. I think some of that should be reflected in lead (it is "so what"). I guess similarly if there are any other things like "worst train crash in BC" or maybe describe the amount of press coverage, then that will help the reader care about this thing (I had never heard of it). Just a frame of reference.

4. I would add a section at the end "Memorial" and discuss some of the stuff that one finds with Googling (the cairn, the 1995 ceremony, the soldiers names being included on the overall Korean War memorial, this). It's not just cruftiness. This event has faded in hit count so that what is out there is probably relevant to cover. Also, it helps connect the past to the present (for readers now). [Belay my last. You have this stuff in there. Seeing it now, as I ce. I still think it would be nice to put that stuff at the end, in a section. I kind of think more about those troops that died than about Deifenbaker, and some of the content is really enduring so chronologically it goes now. The tomb "stands". The memorial service is still repeated.]

5. Article has very light hits (~25 per day). What links here looks decent (you have Deifenbach and the locomotive type and RR). Maybe you can pimp a couple more, like the nearby towns. ;-)

It's a new article and will slowly find its way as more stuff gets linked to it. At the time, there was only the one nearby town, and it was extremely isolated and had no municipal services like hospitals. Nowadays, more people live there, but they now have a year around road and because of the dams of the Columbia River Project, there's more people living there.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. The rescue part needs some work on organization. I think some of it is just writing/org (like don't tell us about the lack of medical supplies before telling us about using axes to open the trains). could move a couple "medical sentences" from first para to later in section (will also make first para slimmer). Other parts I really don't understand the chronology. how did the crewmember go make the call? Why couldn't the people from Valemount call? What happened in what order? If you know it, make it clearer. If you don't, then go read the accident report. ;-)

7. (follow on from 6) Last two paras need org. We talk about the 3 hours in both paras. We talk about the cold in both paras. The part at the end of the last para feels different than the part at the beginning of the last para. Have two separate paras on separate topics (may find solution is just to have three [thinking of second part of last part being it's own para] but in any case A with A, B with B).

8. I'm fine with it, but do we want to give Atherton's age? I guess it implies he was a rookie?

It also explains why he went home to his parents after the firing and why his dad was the one to go see Edna. The kid would not have had the chutzpah to argue his way inside a dying woman's hospital room. It is quite possible the man's still alive, but I've found no trace of him. I looked.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9. "The inquiry showed that most of the deaths and injuries took place among those on the troop train." (I think they knew this before the public inquiry...the charred bodies were a give away) ;-)

10. Edna says Jack Atherton went to see her, but your earlier text says it was the father. Clarify with a note or fix or something.

Dief's poor, or possibly selective memory is why there is inline attribution. It is worth noting that this is the third, and final time he mentions Edna in his memoirs, which occupy three volumes. I also checked a biography of Edna, which sheds no particular light on the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11. "At the conclusion of the four-day trial, counsel argued for five hours; Diefenbaker's summation took three of them. Justice McFarlane took an hour to charge the jury. It returned forty minutes later, and acquitted Atherton as his mother wept.[24]" Does the time of closing arguments really matter? A few hours for a manslaughter case does not seem noteworthy. Feel like we could cut a sentence here. (I am in support of covering the trial as part of the incident, but like to skinny it as we can.)

Yes, since we really do not know what they said, especially Pepler, it doesn't seem worth the mentioning.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

1. Maps at the top are great. One minor thing, have MissMJ increase the size of the wording on the top one (has plenty of room for it and reads small, now). Btw, this is too far north for painted turtles, even in a river valley.

2. Don't like using an infobox for this article. The content is all stuff that seems non-numeric and just basic facts from lead (which is not even over-long). It's not like a city article or an element article, where having some data in a table high in article helps person flicking over for a fact. And then you don't even have the crufty stuff like the engine type in box. (Just a personal view--if you like the box leave it.)

I think the infobox does a good job of presenting the maps and so will leave it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Mountains: good job cropping that other pic. I think it works fairly well and even the caption is not too strained a connection. That said, if we could get an actual winter photo of the mountains or even the valley (with snow) would be better.

4. Missing pics (realize they may be hard to get, but article would noticeable benefit from them, see [1]. Possibly some could be obtained by donation or by a request for someone living there to snap a pic.

the crashed trains
the track in general or the bend
the cairn
the locomotives or wood cars? (Just from the same class, not from those specific trains. It's not just a strained connection to allow sneaking a pic in, but actually communicates something to the current reader who was not riding trains in 1950 what these things were like...I don't know really.)

I will look into it. As I said, I'm planning to be out there in September and would like to see the site. You may have figured out by now that I am a hands on researcher. I'd also like to see if the public library in Valemount has anything of interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. An idea, but what about this for an image? [2]. IANAL but perhaps it is Commons acceptable since just a reproduction of a small amount of words. And it helps build the impression for the current reader that this thing (they've never heard of) was a big deal at the time.

I saw you put it in. If it gets chopped at FAC, I'll put back the map.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

loco is good. Would not go back to the awful map. If you like the news-shot, it is almost certainly compliant (although it looks like it should not be). We could get Graphics to tweak the angle and then would remove any doubt. See discussion at Commons. No push though.

6. Not pushing this, but throwing it out as an idea, but perhaps some functional diagram showing the communication path of the message, could be helpful for the reade to picture the relations of Tisdale, Atherton, train, and repeatbacks (not sure if there were more intermediaries).

7. Second map. Lose it. Way crowded and not much more value than the map you have at top.

If the paper goes, I'll put it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. Deifenbaker photo, love it.

So did he. It's on the cover of his memoirs. It is only PD-CANADA, but I have other images of Dief if this gets chopped.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

While you are a very smooth writer (not saying to be nice, plain-faced comment), the article could still use honing. Biggest thing is some un-needed nominalizations. "It was the intent of CNR dispatcher A. E. Tisdale" -> "CNR dispatcher A. E. Tisdale intended". Other than those, there are a few places (not many but some) where logic gets a little tangled in complex sentences or where you repeat something. I'll go through it and change the ones that might be non-controversial. (If I make any changes you don't like, just change back now or later--I don't have any investment, just quicker to change than to type it and explain it each time, here. Also, I may fix one mistake and create another!) Others will list here and you can just take as peer input.

1. Not sure how to handle this, but "joined the Law Society of British Columbia in order to take the case" feels kinda long for saying "passed the British Columbia bar so he could take the case". WL-ed "Law Society" seems a little over-prominent here. Actually maybe better to ditch the whole having the pass the other province bar exam (in lead). I think you handle it fine in article, but really it is not that strange or "hard" for a lawyer or an engineer to go get another license for a new project out of state. I think more interesting for lead would be something about the dying wife intercesssion on the case. All the other short web articles make a big deal out of it, it was important, and it will have "human interest" above...having to go pass another bar exam. ;-) (sorry, counselor.)

2. First sentence of body text has 40 words (it had 41 but I cut one) as well as a lot of crufty numbers and such. Like to see it slimmed down for readability. Maybe you could cut the wooden car stuff, since that is covered later under the accident anyhow. Or somehow make two sentences. not sure. But please look at it.

3. Think you overuse semicolons a bit. Sometimes you use them perfectly. Other times I feel like a period would be friendlier to the reader. For instance comparing to writing I see outside of Wiki, there are just basically more semicolons being used.

Probably. I'll give it a read through.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. I am not a fan of writing out one set of units and abbreviating the converted ones. Someone on Wiki tried to tell me that is policy but I don't think it makes sense. Would think to write them both out or abbreviate them both.

5. "Atherton, who was aged 22," I think this can be tightend somehow, but hesitate to eff with it. Maybe "Twenty-two year old Atherton"

6. "Dispatcher Tisdale" lc or uc D? (donno)

It's being used as a title. As opposed to "the dispatcher, Tisdale".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. riding? title uses electoral district. If the terms are equal for Canadians, I would used ED as more Ami friendly.

They are not equal; riding is far more common in my experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. having the law society wikilinked down in body feels about right. (we will cut the sentence about the BC bar in lead)

Off topic, the incident itself

1. I think messages about different trains should be separate messages to avoid this sort of confusion. (One could imagine other ways that problems can occur.) Also failure to really use the repeat backs killed people.

2. Seems like kind of a punk trick the "Oh Colonel" crap.

(P.s. HA! I wrote that, then looked up our wiki article, read the plot summary, thought it sounded like you...especially the part about Max's mixed feelings at losing Ellie...then looked in the history who wrote the plot summary! Sandy needs to realize it is all connected.)

Umm .. Starman Jones? My, that was a long time ago. I agree, no matter how you slice it, it was Atherton's fault. The question was, was it manslaughter? Without reading the statute, I couldn't say.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know about legal manslaughter. He got those people killed by fucking up though. Just like the middle manager dame at NASA got a crew of astronauts killed. Or like...um...not having good repeatbacks with the watchstanders could cause a starship to mess up an anamolous transition. ;-) TCO (reviews needed) 18:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]