Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Canoe River train crash/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 16:50, 21 July 2011 [1].

---

Canoe River train crash

Canoe River train crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Canoe River train crash/archive1

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. For some reason, even though there were articles about lesser Canadian rail disasters, there was none on this one, which not only gained intense publicity at the time, but six and a half years later, helped make John Diefenbaker prime minister of Canada. It's been through a GA and a very detailed PR. The fourth in my series on postwar Canadian politics.Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Oh...Wehwalt!" Just kidding. I went over it pretty hard at Peer Review and copyediting, so know it well. I am positive on the article. Interesting incident that will play well for the Wikians and general public that likes reading about train wrecks and also has a good higher level political tie-in Major outstanding concern I have is the Rescue section still needs better logical organization. (Chronology of events is not clear, we discuss weather in two separate paras, lack of supplies mentioned at beginning makes less sense than down where we talk about the doctor's work, etc.) There were a few other changes I recced that you did not agree with, which is fine. Article needs a decisive captain. You've won me over on the politician prominence at the end. At least the troops get a nice final touch in the lead, and then in aftermath we've got them at first para prominence instead of second (and I guess the chronologicy sort of works if we think of the Korean War deaths as the start of that para). TCO (reviews needed) 13:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

How does it look now to you?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. TCO (reviews needed) 13:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I like that answer! Thank you for the most thorough peer review and copyedit, and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Pleasure. You contribute a huge amount to Wiki.TCO (reviews needed) 01:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how locations are notated for newspapers that don't include them in the title, and what information is included (for example, Windsor vs Windson (Ont.))
• 2nd Regiment or Second Regiment?
• Don't include cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Those things are done. I tried to make a judgment about which cities are big enough that people will have heard of them, but obviously was inconsistent in one case!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Media: I'm having a tough time with File:Canoerivertrainwreck.svg. Could this please be explained? If it's not suitable for Commons... Was File:Johndiefenbaker.jpg under Crown Copyright? Is it definitely PD in the US? J Milburn (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know on the .svg. I will ask. I've swapped the other image for one of Dief in 1940 that is unquestionably PD. Since Dief was in opposition, pre-1957 shots of him that are Crown copyright are unusual.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(discussion re: File:Canoerivertrainwreck.svg has moved to the talk page)

I gather the discussion re the .svg has concluded satisfactorily. J Milburn, can you give images your blessing, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Images check out, as per discussion on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks to every one for taking the time to get it right.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support: Straightforward account, tightly written, with just a handful of issues:

• You say in the nom statement that the disaster "helped make John Diefenbaker prime minister of Canada", but this line isn't really illustrated in the article. I would expect to see a sentence or two in the Aftermath section, emphasising the publicity surrounding the case and the boost to Dief's career resulting from his victory.
• The map: the railway lines as depicted don't suggest a direct east-west configuration, and I'm a bit uncertain about the directions the two trains were travelling in. Is it possible to add information to the map - some arrows would be helpful? I'm also a bit concerned that the source information in the file description begins: "Based on description in Canoe River train crash and..."

She is probably referring to [File:Canoe River railway map.png this image], which TCO took out, but which shows the various sidings and stations pretty clearly.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The "Based on description in Canoe River train crash..." refers to how I placed the location of the crash itself, which is described in the article. File:Canoe River railway map.png and maps made available by the Canadian government were used to locate political borders, railroads, cities, etc. -MissMJ (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Rescue section: prose in the first paragraph is somewhat repetitive, with "troop cars ... troop cars" in close proximity, then "troop train ... troop train". Some rephrasing advised.

Otherwise all well. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You are quite right, they were going more or less north and south, the tracks in this region follow the rivers except where they blast through the mountains. I will ask MissMJ and see if she can add one of those little compass indicators.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

done Added an arrow per map conventions to show that up is, indeed, North. -MissMJ (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've left my image query unstruck, awaiting the outcome of the greater debate, above. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support from Dana Boomer - Just a few minor comments, which don't change my support:

• In the lead you say the trains were westbound and eastbound, but from the lead map it looks like they were travelling north and south. I see you've discussed this a bit above, but I'm still not clear. Could you explain further?
• Prosecution, the story about Diefenbaker's bar exam is quite interesting. Do we know the reason behind this obvious reduction in testing? Was it even legal?

Otherwise, looks good! Dana boomer (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks - Checked several of the references and found no indication of close paraphrasing or copyvios; all references backed up what they were supposed to. Dana boomer (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I say "westbound" and "eastbound" so I don't have to confuse the issue by noting that at that particular point, it was actually north and south. Train tracks in the Rockies follow river valleys, and at this point, they run north south quite a bit. That is why I use the terms "eastbound" and "westbound". The interested reader can see that from the maps in the infobox. Regarding the bar exam, again it is speculation on my part, but I did find an article reaming the bar association for charging Dief so much money so he could take a case in which he was known not to be charging a fee. I think they were giving in with good grace. That way they got Dief's money, had little risk of embarrassment (Dief was a very competent lawyer and KC), and did not start a precedent of letting people in the bar for free if they had a good enough reason. Win-win. If it wasn't legal, it was never challenged, as Dief took another BC case just before he became Opposition Leader, which did not go as well for him and which he did not write about in his memoirs (basically, in this murder case, which he lost, he demonstrated his theory of how the murder took place and wound up addressing the court from under the defence table. The judge, who wrote about it in his memoirs, stated, "Mr. Diefenbaker, if you come out from under there, I shall be able to hear you much better.") Thanks for the support and the checks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Awesome story! On the westbound/eastbound - I guess my confusion is that it looks like the entire route (between Valemount and Blue River) runs approximately north/south. So that makes me wonder why east/westbound even enters the picture. If the train was headed from Jasper to Red Pass, I could see using these directions, even if the trains were temporarily facing north/south, but when the primary route runs north/south... It's also quite possible that I'm just missing something completely obvious... :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the trains weren't stopping in the mountains, they were following the transcontinental routing, From their point of origin (Shilo, Manitoba for the troop train, Vancouver for the passenger train) to their intended destinations (Fort Lewis, on Puget Sound for the trooper, Montreal for the passenger train), they were, for the most part, traveling east-west, so it makes more sense to say "eastbound" and "westbound" even though for that forty miles or so, it was mostly north-south. I am open to other ways of doing things.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see now! I was thinking of it only in terms of that section (I think because that's what's shown on the map), instead of the entire route. Makes more sense now. Dana boomer (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - I noticed this while working on my own FAC. Personally, I think it's a very engaging article, though I have a few minor remarks:

• "Twenty-one people were killed: 17 Canadian soldiers being deployed in the Korean War and the two-man locomotive crew of each train." – In my opinion, "being" is redundant in this sentence, as deployed on its own conveys the same meaning just as well. Overall, I think the prose in this sentence is a bit odd and terse.
• "(Cedarside and Gosnell were sidings where trains could wait to allow opposing traffic to clear)." – The period needs to be added into the parenthesis as they contain a complete sentence, rather than a mere fragment.
• "The leading cars of each train were derailed. Those which had been part of the troop train were demolished by the crash." – Nothing wrong here, though "The leading cars of each train were derailed, while those which had been part of the troop train were demolished by the crash" might be preferable qua flow.
• "A 17th soldier died on December 9, bringing the death toll to 21." – How did he pass away all of a sudden? Is there any information on the extent of the injuries he suffered or the cause of death? Maybe you can find out if he was hospitalized prior to his death. Any elaboration would help clarify, really.
• "He also testified to a brief gap in communications several days previously," – Previously? As in, prior to the accident or...?
• "$127,000,000" → $127 million reads better. And I assume this is in 1950 USD; this inclusion would be nice.

As no special discussion of the figure occurs in the source, I took it to read Canadian dollars. As this is an article about an event in Canada, the use of Canadian dollars requires no special notation, surely?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think most people just assume currency depending on where they are. A Canadian reader will most surely see it as Canadian dollars, but as a reader on the U.S., when I see $, I just assume USD, even though I know the article is about Canada. Someone from Australia would probably see it as Australian dollars. It'd just be a small clarification to add which currency it is. -MissMJ (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph of the Inquiry section, there are three consecutive sentences starting with "It". I think this could be switched up a bit.
• "Instead she wired him asking him to meet her in Vancouver." → "Instead she wired him, requesting that he meet her in Vancouver" for less repetitiveness.
• I'm unfamiliar with the expression "pass the hat". Could it be reworded to exclude possible confusion? ★ Auree _talk 22:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and the comments. Those issues have been addressed, except for the one commented just above.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. An interesting article, and it looks like it's just waiting for its star, but I do have a few small suggestions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• You might consider re-wording Twenty-one people were killed to "The collision killed 21 people" or similar to avoid starting a sentence with a number and to avoid having "Twenty-one" and "17" in close succession.
• Edmonton is mentioned several times but not linked in the body
• The Crown might be worth a link for those unfamiliar with the Commonwealth legal system

Those things are done. Thanks for coming aboard!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. There was very little to criticise, but I'm glad my suggestions were useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose based on the comments below. While doing this review, I read the article several times and some of its sources, plus the Good Article (GA) review and the peer review (PR). Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Striking oppose, as concerns addressed, will need to read through entire article again later today before deciding whether to support or not, but that shouldn't hold up this nomination. Carcharoth (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Page history. Technical point first: the page history is borked. The earliest version of this page appears to be a draft for a different article. Presumably something went wrong when transferring from a userspace sandbox? The revisions that relate to other content appear to be from the first version on 1 December 2010 to the version on 6 June 2011. The article started to be written on 10 June 2011, as can be seen from this diff and was moved later the same day. While only a technicality, the article history really needs to be cleaner than this for featured articles, for a variety of reasons, one being that the page history is currently misleading as to when the article was started. One of the reasons problems haven't been ironed out is because it has only been around for just over a month and not enough people outside of the review process have seen it.

  Can I use devrel to hide the things or is there some other process you would recommend?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  I would ask at WP:HISTMERGE, as those that hang out there will know how to do demerging or history splitting. If those old revisions are just notes you don't mind losing, revdel might be OK. If you want that history back in your userspace, it can probably be moved there. Somehow. I think. Actually, the process outlined at WP:HISTMERGE#History splitting sounds ideal. But I've never done that myself. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  I've sorted this (it's fairly simple: delete, partial undelete, move, undelete the rest) and moved the old revisions elsewhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Undue weight. The major concern I have with the article is what I see as undue weight on the Diefenbaker part of the story (mentioned 3 times in the lead and around 30 times in the article). This appears to be because the article was started as "series on postwar Canadian politics" to quote the nominator at the start of this FAC review, rather than started as an article on a train crash, or an article on Canadian military history. The parts of the article on Diefenbaker are (unsurprisingly) excellent, but what was really needed here was reviews from those more attuned to other aspects, to help get the balance right.

The subsequent editing has subtly shifted the balance and addressed most of my concern here, so striking this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Missing information. Outside of the Diefenbaker aspects of the article, there are several key points missing, which reinforces my impression that this article has been written as an offshoot of the main Diefenbaker article (presumably to include material for which there wasn't room in the main article), and currently lacks the research that should have been done to ensure the non-Diefenbaker parts of the article were comprehensive. Examples of missing information are below.

  Well, actually, you are mistaken. I wrote this out of annoyance that there was no article on this. My work on the main Diefenbaker article concluded I think in March 2010, though I did some work on it in September.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  Please do not take what I say in a nom statement too seriously. It's designed to attract clicks and reviewers, and to give the signpost something to write about if it is promoted.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  I'll try and remember that in future. I've now struck what I said above, as the missing information was added or addressed, and I think the article has refocused somewhat. I accept that you didn't write it as an offshoot of the Diefenbaker article, but I do think that the differences in the sources used (newspaper reports versus book sources) may have contributed to you writing more on the trial section that might have been the case if it had been written as a crash/military article first and then had the trial bit added later. Sometimes the starting point can influence the endpoint, if that makes sense. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  • There is a third memorial that is not mentioned, in Brookside Cemetery in Winnipeg. See here. This is different from the memorial cenotaph at CFB Shilo and the one near the accident site, both of which are pictured here. You also fail to mention when the Camp Shilo monument was erected. The whole memorial business seems rather confused. I would be wary of saying that there is a definitive number, but it would be good to know which memorials these 17 are named on and which they are not named on. Are they on the Korean War Memorial Wall (Canada), for example (it would be worth mentioning if they are not)? Are they on the online Virtual Memorial site that Canadian authorities maintain? This article could be as much about the memorial aspect as about the trial and political aspects, but currently the article lacks the material on the memorials, even though the sources are out there.
  • Deadlock in Korea: Canadians at war, 1950-1953 - this source is in the article, but you fail to use the other mentions from that source, such as the mention on page 302 about the Canadian Volunteer Service Medal (that it was not issued to the 17 that died in the train crash).
  • Korea volunteer: an oral history from those who were there also has extra material. In particular, it quotes from the book RCHA - Right of the Line (the regimental history, by a Major G. D. Mitchell), and appears to give a different perspective to the one currently in the article (which is based mainly on contemporary news reports). It is easy to find online excerpts, such as here, that give the dedication and unveiling date of the Camp Shilo memorial as 21 November 1952. It is stuff like this that is missing from the article. There are also hints of confusion over memorials and dates, with 1987 mentioned in some places, and 1998 in other places. It all needs sorting out and more careful examination.

    That sounds interesting. I'll look into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

    I think the 1998 roadside marker is something else, it is not the same as the 1987 cairn. I've given up on numbering the memorials, but will add what I can from them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  • The Canadian nurse, Volume 48 (1952) - an interesting fragment here, though unfortunately all that can be seen from the Google search page is "The behavior of the Jasper nurses at the Canoe River train wreck..." Might not be that relevant, but could be. There are other scattered fragments, and official government debates and accident commission reports coming up as well.

    You surprise me. I did look on google books fairly thoroughly looking for accident commission reports. Can you supply a link? I also checked the Vancouver Bar Association website for their law library.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

    There is a mention in Canadian railway and transport cases, Volume 67, but whether that is a preliminary note or the full case, I can't tell. The trick seems to be to search using the term "accident" or "collision" rather than "wreck" (or omit that search term altogether), and use dates to focus on the relevant "canoe river" material. Brief mention in 1952 from Journals of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, Volume 94 (page 174). I also found a more recent mention from 2002 in this journal if that helps. Carcharoth (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    Ah yes, I did see that, and I did the same trick you did. I could not obtain a copy of the railway decision/inquiry report/whatever it is. Railway law is not big these days. The thing is, these are primary sources, not without value no doubt, but primary sources. I did include a secondary source which mentioned what the inquiry report said.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    Sure. The report must still exist somewhere! Hopefully the non-primary source (from 2002) will be of use. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    It isn't. If you search for "on a hillside", you can see the start of the Canoe River discussion and if you search for "worst ever", you can see the end of it. I plan on adding something on the medals matter; I've ordered the Barris book. Anyhow, I've made a start on the section you mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    Pity about the 2002 mention. Glad the nursing one was useful and that you have obtained a copy of the Barris book. I do have a few more suggestions, but will put those on the article talk page. Please don't worry too much about the crash report - that was only an offhand comment I made when I saw references to it in my various searches. Your report of the conclusions in the newspaper report are enough for me, though I'm sure the report itself (well, the conclusions) would be worth a look. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  • At the peer review, this newspaper article (from 2010) was pointed out, but the information was never added to the article.

    I did read it at the time of the peer review, it was not just ignored, and I just read it again. It's interesting, but the fact that the guy hopes to have the dead honoured by the Korean government isn't presently too helpful. And nothing in that article about the history is terribly novel. There is, by the way, a subsequent article, they got back some letters of thanks from Korea. I did not think it worth the mentioning. It's all very slapdash and unofficial.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for responding on this point. You've convinced me that it is not official enough to mention. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  • The medal issue is also mentioned here (this source is in the article, but the medal issue is not mentioned in the article): "Five of their next-of-kin are being presented with the Memorial Cross. The remaining next-of-kin will receive the Memorial Cross at a later date." This should be mentioned in the article.

    Noting that this was added to the article. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Poor ending. The current ending of the article is not good, again because of the undue emphasis on Diefenbaker. This should be an article about the train crash and those who died in it, but the article ends by telling the reader when Diefenbaker became Prime Minister of Canada. It feels like the whole article was leading up to that point, and feels dismissive of the real human tragedy that took place here. The article should end with details of the memorials and commemorations. That would shift the closing focus from being on Diefenbaker to being on those who died in the crash.

  Actually, I am aware of many of these, such as the Senate commemoration. A long list of commemorations strikes me as texually difficult, but I will see what I can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  The new section has shifted the focus, which allays my main concern. Thanks. Comments on the new section, I'll place on the article talk page (there are a few more dates that could be added, and more context added, as you do in the Diefenbaker sections, to make more of a narrative and less of a piecemeal listing). Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Minor points. Set of minor points also noted in this review.
  • The Royal Canadian Horse Artillery are not special forces, but someone has linked to that term. Looking at the sources, I think you meant to refer to the 'Korea Special Force' being assembled by Canada at the time. The formal name for this was the Canadian Army Special Force (CASF). See here for details. This is a basic error in military terminology that should have been picked up earlier, and probably would have been if you had submitted this for review at something like the Military History WikiProject. There may be more errors like this elsewhere in the article.

    Possibly, I'll ask a military project reviewer to have a look.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    I see the editor you asked has looked. Thanks for doing this. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Your first source (Chase, Sean. "Gunners of 2RCHA suffered a tragic day at Canoe River" The Daily Observer) lacks a publication date. I can see the website doesn't provide one, but something is needed.

    Can you suggest a good way of getting something in there?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

    Based on 'Posted 1 year ago', I would put the publication year as "2010" and leave it at that. It just needs to be clear whether it is a 1950s news report, or a more recent one. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    Read it. It's modern.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    I had read it. And it was a more readable account of the accident than the one currently in the Wikipedia article. Admittedly, that author was writing for a newspaper audience, not aiming for an encyclopedic treatment of the topic, so that will account for most of the difference, but (from memory) that account mentions the eye-witnesses who saw the accident, and one of them attempting to warn the trains that they were about to collide. I realise you can't include everything mentioned in the news reports, from there are some omissions which seem odd. Did you only mention stuff that was in more than one source, or something like that (which would help explain omissions)? Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    I tried to steer a middle course so as to avoid dubious claims. The oil fire was one concern, I was convinced by a 1950 source over an offhand, more modern source that it happened after the soldiers were gone. If there was an oil fire, I decided, there would have been some way of staying warm. The 1950 reference was specific enough to convince me. I will be honest, Carcharoth. I believe legend, both from Diefenbaker and the regiment, displaced some of the truth on this incident. I think you felt I was rather slapdash in putting this article together. Not in the least. I had to make value judgments about specific claims and I hope I got them right. There are definite errors in the Chase article, to my mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    I noticed some of the contradictions and possible errors as well, both in the 1950s newspaper articles and in more modern sources (as far as staying warm goes, the nursing journal article says something about that). This is the reason I haven't supported yet, and is why I said below that I would need to read through the article and its sources again. Making value judgments like this when writing part of an article based mostly on newspaper reports is not easy, and I would normally have expected some discussion on this matter (e.g. on the talk page), but as this article is mostly a single-author work, that discussion doesn't seem to have happened. I would then look for evidence that other reviewers have picked up on this and asked about it, but I'm not seeing that either. Which is why I've been laying out my concerns here (slowly, because I was having trouble pinpointing what was troubling me). Carcharoth (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Following on from the above, and to be clear, I absolutely agree that editors have to judge things like this (sometimes it is unavoidable), but I would be more comfortable if it had been made clearer either in the article, on the article's talk page, or in the nomination statement, that certain sources had been considered and rejected, and certain elements from some sources omitted because of uncertainty about the reliability of the sources. I know it is not possible to document every example of such editorial judgment on an article, but if it is not documented at all, then time is wasted as people say "what about this source that you haven't used" and "what about those eyewitnesses you don't mention in this source you have used". I'm sure there are perfectly valid reasons for including some material and excluding others, but reviewers and readers (who may go and read the sources you used and read other sources as well) are not mind-readers and I and they have no way of knowing whether something was excluded because you thought it trivial or excess detail, or because you thought it was an error. I think it is reasonable to ask how much editorial judgment you had to exercise when bringing together the narrative of the crash from various sources, and whether that is a valid point of discussion in this review. Carcharoth (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a valid point. I think few sources were utterly excluded for that reason, but you have to sift and judge on points such as the oil fire. In that case, the fact that the nurses don't mention it is pretty strong evidence, since they mention heating. I do not think these are exceptional things; they are routine when article writing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If there is going to be an expectation that where people are choosing among sources which are not entirely consistent, that they document that somewhere, that is something that perhaps should be discussed at WT:FAC to ensure it gets the full discussion it deserves.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• continuing after unindentation
  • Block signal link needs re-anchoring or the destination anchor reconfigured/extended to make it work again.

    Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Redirects such as 'Canoe River accident' are needed (this is a term used by some of the sources).

    Done. I did "disaster" too, and I already had done "train wreck".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictures exist online of the wreck scene and of the memorials, and these can be legitimately linked to in the external links (i.e. you wouldn't be linking to copyvios). Such linking should be done, as the current pictures do nothing but flag up to the reader that the obvious pictures that you would expect to see are not present (and you can't expect readers to rummage around in the sources to find pictures - it is a courtesy to point the readers to where pictures exist).

    Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks. I may tweak the one to the online museum exhibit, as that is good enough (and has several pictures) that it is worth pointing to the start of that and annotating the external link to say that the exhibit includes pictures of the crash. Also, before I forget, there is an actual picture of the Continental locomotive online, you could see where that came from and try and obtain it under a suitable license. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    I found a ref that says that the only photos from the scene were taken by a specific soldier. Even if it's PD-Canada because of Crown Copyright expired, by January 1, 2001 when Crown copyright ran out, Canada had entered the Berne Convention, which means it is not PD in the United States. That is if he took it as part of his official duties "Glugtatch! You're good with a camera, go take pictures of the wreck, the railway officials will want to see them." If he took it on his own volition, then it is a more difficult question as to judge. Glugtach may own the copyright, which I believe would be subject to a life plus 70 rule, which of course would not have expired.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    Sorry, I was unclear. I meant a picture of one of the actual locomotives, but taken a few years before the crash. This would seem preferable to the generic picture you currently have. I've given details on the article talk page (along with a few other notes). It is probably not possible to obtain that picture under a free license, but I thought it worth pointing it out, as it is not possible to know what others have seen and silently rejected in the source of their own searches. Carcharoth (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

    Even if there are photos of the specific locomotives, I'm somewhat dubious that it would pass NFCC against an actual image of an identical loco, but with a different number. Do you remember which ref it was in? Or was it elsewhere?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

  • The link to the Henderson source is not the best, better would be this link (or a link to the page from where the quote is taken. It would also be best to add the chapter title and pages: 'We Never Broke A Window', pp. 15-23.

I've yet to read all the sources used, but may have more to say after reading through them. Overall, I'm opposing based on the above concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

See preliminary comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs)

I am very hesitant to add chapter and chapter pages, because if I do that, I'll have to do it for every other book. Why do you feel it would be helpful? I do not mind investing work but I fear it would be work that would give the reader no advantage.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is more the link that concerns me. You should either link to the Google Books page for the book, or to the start of the chapter in question. Currently you dump the reader on page 23, which presumably is where you were when you copied the link from your browser window. The thing about chapters is more a desire for precision on my part. I think chapter titles help when the rest of the book is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and you are really only using that chapter as a source, but maybe that is just me. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied to a few. Hopefully it will all come out in the wash. I'll check back tomorrow or when you get the chance to look at more of this. I do think you should try and get some military history people to have a look, and there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster Management that might rustle up people who have worked on train disaster accidents before. Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I did find a full text of the nurses, and it does look very helpful, yes, please stop back and reassess in a day or two. I will probably not get the Barris book until Friday. I've done much of the work, as indicated. I will do more tomorrow, and then complete when I get the book on Friday. I will poke around further for that report, but I feel comfortable that the secondary source discussing its release should be sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I got the Barris book and added stuff from it. Look, there are many anecdotes of heroism and tragedy in the section on the rescue efforts, I could add more, but I think the reader is clued in on the terrible situation it was. I have addressed the remainder of Carcharoth's comments. I have looked at all the sources, except the one in the law books, it will most likely have to wait until the next time I am in Canada and have time to visit a law library. I'm going to call the one in Vancouver and see if I can get them to copy it for me, but I am dubious that they will be willing to copy 80 pages from a book in copyright (although the report itself would be out of copyright, at least in Canada. I think I've addressed most of what was wanted, and will drop a line on Carcharoth's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Barris book arrived within 7 hours? That's impressive. In fact, I see it arrived around two hours ([2], [3]) after you said above that it would arrive on Friday. I need access to a service as fast as that! Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I found it at the library ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I find this to be an excellent article. I have no major problems with the page. Interchangable (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.