Talk:Moorgate tube crash

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a00:23c7:2b86:9801:799c:b97d:4044:790a (talk) at 20:33, 11 December 2022 (→‎IP reverts today). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleMoorgate tube crash is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 3, 2021.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 4, 2018Featured article candidatePromoted
March 8, 2018Peer reviewReviewed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 28, 2013, February 28, 2015, February 28, 2018, February 28, 2019, and February 28, 2022.
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject iconDeath FA‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
FAThis article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Soot and dirt was or were disturbed??

Header says it all really. It's been "was" for ages then back and forth and I'm tending to think "were", but maybe better to discuss here first. I'll revert my most recent flip pending a chat here. I hope 213.205.194.214 among others might turn up to discuss. Best to all DBaK (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DBaK, I think it’s better as ‘was’, but there could be an argument for ‘were’, I suppose. It’s one act of disturbance and – to some extent – one thing (‘rubbish’) being disturbed. Cheers 213.205.194.214 (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! I am less than fully convinced of my own rightness here so happy to leave it. Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been mulling this over for a couple of days, and I think both sound right and wrong, depending on which way the wind is blowing, but I’m still unsure. Tim riley, do you have a thought on which is best? - 213.205.194.46 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote query

There's a footnote added in this edit by Vpab15 which explains the Underground > British Rail shift of the line. I am not sure it's needed as it is explained once at the end of the lead then again in detail in the body. What do others think? I am not strongly hostile enough to it to just waste a good-faith edit without other views ... cheers DBaK (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to mention Northern City Line is no longer part of the Underground when first mentioned, to avoid confusion with the Northern Line. Happy to have some other formula instead of a note, something like: on the Northern City Line, then part of London Underground. Vpab15 (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken it out - it's not lede-worthy to have it, I think, as it's only a minor point in the whole story. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:A0A8:E440:6146:BEEE (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made impact?

At the moment we say when the driver's cab made impact with the hydraulic buffer. Is that a Thing in English? You can make contact but can you make impact? It sounds odd to me but I am getting that thing where if you look at something too long it's all wrong! Just tell me it is or is not OK and I will shut up about it ... cheers DBaK (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a UK English speaker it reads fine and FA-appropriately to me. A Google search throws up 112,000 hits for "made impact with". Many are for different meanings, but from the first page of these is the fairly typical "Anyone who has been in a car accident where the vehicle made impact with another object will understand ..." Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a UK English speaker it seems slightly odd to me. A Google search throws up 8,430,000 hits for "made contact with" (and "soot and dirt were disturbed" if these are considered to be two things).catslash (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely fine in BrEng, but as I suspect others will pick up on it next week, I've tweaked to "when the driver's cab crashed into the hydraulic buffer", which is less contentious, grammatically speaking. If anyone wants to tweak that, please feel free. Cheers - SC, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:A0A8:E440:6146:BEEE (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this and sorry for the slow reply. Obviously I don't really have the BrE qualifications to discuss it, as I only speak a sort of grunting simulacrum of the Quen's Ynglisshe, but I am much happier with it in this form, which sounds much more acceptable to my no-doubt cloth ears. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers DBaK! I hope you're keeping well. - SC as 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK so far, thank you ... :) DBaK (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts of edits

2a00:23c7:2b86:9800:1d4c:5458:cbd8:e267,

The quote in question is a comma splice. "Go easy on it" is one sentence; "I shall want another cup when I come off duty" is another. They are related; but joining them together with a comma is incorrect. Also, please do not revert entire edits when you disagree with a single change in that edit. That is considered disruptive. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As

MOS:CONFORM explains, simple typographical errors can be corrected when unimportant. The meaning of the sentence is not changed by replacing the comma with a semicolon; it is just being corrected. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Regarding the template documentation: I'm not going to follow an instruction which doesn't make sense. If you want to try substituting the anchor in the heading yourself (which is what it's saying to do – not just to have the template call in the heading, which breaks it) then you will see why it's a poor choice. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is fine as it is, there is no real comma splice, and the comma is correct. Yes, if I were writing it, I may well have used a semi-colon (or maybe not), but as it's a quote, we may as well keep the original given it is acceptable English.
Please do not claim that I reverted an entire edit when I disagreed with just one change: that is untrue, and rather disingenuous of you to claim it, given one of my edit summaries reads "Some other changes were not improvements from the WP:STATUS QUO". I disagreed with everything I reverted, and left in the bits that I did not disagree with.
Regarding the template documentation. It is there, whether you choose to like it or not. There are swathes of the MoS I disagree with, but I am still bound by their advice despite that. I see you have queried the change to the template, which is fine, but the consensus is against you on the point at the moment. Fell free to change the position of the anchor once the consensus changes on the documentation. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
there is no real comma splice
They are independent clauses. Therefore, joining them together with a comma is a comma splice.
Please do not claim that I reverted an entire edit when I disagreed with just one change: that is untrue, and rather disingenuous of you to claim it, given one of my edit summaries reads "Some other changes were not improvements from the WP:STATUS QUO". I disagreed with everything I reverted, and left in the bits that I did not disagree with.
You gave no rationale for that. You must give a rationale for every part of an edit you revert.
Regarding the template documentation. It is there, whether you choose to like it or not.
Template documentation is not binding; please review Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_222#Instructions_on_the_placement_of_"Anchor"_templates and you will see that there was not actually a consensus for the change made anyway. DesertPipeline (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation, and the two sources (one an official government report) also think the comma is suitable
As I pointed out, I gave a rational for it ("Some other changes were not improvements from the WP:STATUS QUO"), even if you dislike that rationale
It doesn't matter your opinion on the documentation. I've been involved in stacks of discussions that came to the "wrong" answer, but at the end of the day I've accepted the decision that was mae. Have it overturned by all means, but until then, the version that is in line with the documentation should stay. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation, and the two sources (one an official government report) also think the comma is suitable
Correct grammar is not based on interpretations nor following the sources. Otherwise, MOS:CONFORM would not exist. There would be no point in saying "Correct grammatical mistakes in quotes" but also "the sources cannot be grammatically wrong".
As I pointed out, I gave a rational for it ("Some other changes were not improvements from the WP:STATUS QUO"), even if you dislike that rationale
Changes do not have to be "improvements"; they merely have to not be detrimental. However, please explain why you do not consider them improvements.
It doesn't matter your opinion on the documentation. I've been involved in stacks of discussions that came to the "wrong" answer, but at the end of the day I've accepted the decision that was mae. Have it overturned by all means, but until then, the version that is in line with the documentation should stay.
Then you have to substitute the anchor template; this is what the template documentation says to do. You are just putting the template call in the heading, which breaks it. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've said I disagree with you and the sources obviously do (and yes, grammar can be a matter of interpretation)
In an FA, a change that is not an improvement isn't worth making. Some of the changes were slightly clumsy and disrupted the flow, and there is a difference between "continuous" and "round the clock" with more clarity in the phrase than the word.2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've said I disagree with you and the sources obviously do (and yes, grammar can be a matter of interpretation)
It is not a matter of interpretation. They are two independent clauses. Whether or not a writer would use a comma in informal writing to join them, we cannot do that on Wikipedia because we are an encylopedia. We must write correctly.
In an FA, a change that is not an improvement isn't worth making.
That is not how Wikipedia works. Nothing would get done otherwise. Everyone's opinions are going to differ on which changes are "improvements". I think my changes were improvements; you disagree. The fact is they were not detrimental – or at least you have provided no case for them being detrimental. I do not consider them detrimental or I would not have made them.
Some of the changes were slightly clumsy and disrupted the flow
Please write down each change I made that you object to, then state specifically why you oppose it.
there is a difference between "continuous" and "round the clock" with more clarity in the phrase than the word
"round-the-clock" is a colloquialism. What is unclear about continuous? It means constant. That is the same as "round-the-clock". DesertPipeline (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. (See, I can also just write blunt statements that deny any questionable shades of grey to a position). I am aware of the needs for formal (but easily accessible) writing for Wikipedia. I wrote this article some time ago and it was one of a great number I took through FAC, so I think I know the standards required for writing FAs.
Umm... that's not entirely correct, particularly for an FA (see
WP:FAOWN
as to having to be more circumspect in making changes, rather than deciding something, edit warring, then sticking one's heels in to defend a position). It's why we have PR and FAC
Not necessarily. I work continuously through the day. I don't work in the evenings or at nights. "round the clock" (unhyphenated) is not described as a colloquial term in the OED. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's supposed to be hyphenated. I don't know why it's not hyphenated there. It's hyphenated in Wiktionary. Also, if it's not a colloquialism, "around-the-clock" would be better. It still sounds idiomatic to me though. Now please explain your objections to every other change you reverted. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wiktionary says it's idiomatic. Furthermore, "I work continuously" is not the same as "I work continuously throughout the day". You have to add "throughout the day" because this is not implied by "continuously". DesertPipeline (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So now both you and Wiktionary know better than the OED?? Goodness me. I can go through the others and point out why the existing text was better, but if you're going to argue at such length about them all, including ignoring what the OED has to say, then I'm not entirely sure that would be a terribly constructive step. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So now both you and Wiktionary know better than the OED??
You are using the argument from authority fallacy. The Oxford English Dictionary is not necessarily correct. Wiktionary lists both hyphenated and unhyphenated; considering it is a compound phrase I would assume that hyphenation is correct. It is not the main entry, though. wikt:around the clock lists it as idiomatic.
I can go through the others and point out why the existing text was better, but if you're going to argue at such length about them all, including ignoring what the OED has to say, then I'm not entirely sure that would be a terribly constructive step
If you do not provide a rationale for a reversion then your reversion is not valid. Please provide a rationale for all the changes I made which you object to. This is the final time I will ask you to do this. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary is a heap of horse ordure that should in no way be considered a reliable authority for anything. While the OED may not be accurate 100 per cent of the time, it trumps Wiktionary and whatever you think you may know best on.
"the final time"? Please do not threaten me. You have reverted four times on this article and another would see me file at the 3RR noticeboard with the automatic results that a fifth revert would undoubtedly generate, particularly given the warnings you've been given and particularly given the justifications I have already provided. I will provide a description of the rest at some point soon, but it certainly won't be at your beck and call. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Desert Pipeline has a novel interpretation of Wikipedia's modus operandi: a single drive-by editor can insist on detailed rebuttal of his/her alterations even when there is no support for any of them when raised on the article talk page? Please! Tim riley talk 12:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you've been doing "useful" things like logging evidence that you've edit warred (yes, I have too, but I don't give enough of a toss to care if I'm blocked for a spell or not). In terms of the changes made, my thinking is as below. No doubt you'll argue against them all, and think your versions were better, but there is a well-established status quo to retain the original unless you come up with something more concrete than you prefer your version:
  • "hypotheses" v "theories". Not much between them, but 'theories' slightly better, given the various definitions in the OED:
Theory: "An explanation of a phenomenon arrived at through examination and contemplation of the relevant facts"; "More generally: a hypothesis or set of ideas about something."
Hypothesis: "A supposition in general; something supposed or assumed to be true without proof or conclusive evidence; an assumption."; "Hence spec. A groundless or insufficiently grounded supposition; a mere assumption or guess."
* "ventilation is produced by". The current version is slightly better. 1. It is "produced by" – as a process is needed to being it into being, "produced by" indicates this whereas the lack doesn't
* "20-minute spells working" – to my ear, this is more easy for general reading than " 20-minute periods of working"
* "Robinson's:" – I think the semi-colon better than just the colon here. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:78AB:6DA7:5309:9F9A (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"hypotheses" v "theories". Not much between them, but 'theories' slightly better, given the various definitions in the OED
A theory is a testable observation of reality that current testing suggests is true. A hypothesis is a testable observation of reality which has not yet been tested thoroughly enough to determine whether or not it is likely true. Considering there are multiple hypotheses, "theory" is incorrect purely on that basis – you cannot have more than one correct theory of something. Colloquial usage has turned "theory" into "guess" or "conjecture", and "hypothesis" is essentially ignored.
"ventilation is produced by". The current version is slightly better. 1. It is "produced by" – as a process is needed to being it into being, "produced by" indicates this whereas the lack doesn't
The problem is that you have changed it back so it uses the word "create". "Create" is very commonly used as a synonym for many different words, such as "construct", "produce", "make", "author", et cetera, but it is not a synonym of them. "Create" means "something from nothing" – ventilation is caused by some sort of action. I am happy to discuss better wording which still fixes this problem.
"20-minute spells working" – to my ear, this is more easy for general reading than " 20-minute periods of working"
"Spell" is a colloquialism. Again, if you have any suggestions for a simplified sentence structure while retaining the fix, please let me know. However, I don't personally feel that my change is harder to parse. — Addendum 13:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC): What about "20-minute working periods"?
"Robinson's:" – I think the semi-colon better than just the colon here.
The text after the semicolon is explaining his conclusion, though; it should be a colon to indicate "and this is how his conclusion differed". DesertPipeline (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah look ... you've managed to argue the toss over all of them quelle surprise!
Only when used in in terms of a scientific theory, rather than in general use – and that doesn't make if colloquial, just general use.
'"Create" means "something from nothing"'. Not quite Yes, you're right that it is one definition of the word, but only one, and it's used correctly here.
Nope. "Spells" is not a colloquialism as far as the OED is concerned.
Not quite. It's more than just the conclusion we have after the semi colon. This is a moot point, I agree, and I think both could probably be used here, but the semi is there, and may as well remain. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:78AB:6DA7:5309:9F9A (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only when used in in terms of a scientific theory, rather than in general use – and that doesn't make if colloquial, just general use.
Scientific theory is where the word came from. General usage is actually misuse; we're an encylopedia and shouldn't make these mistakes. It only perpetuates them.
'"Create" means "something from nothing"'. Not quite Yes, you're right that it is one definition of the word, but only one, and it's used correctly here.
This is another example of general usage being misuse. "Create" is a word only intended to mean "something from nothing"; general usage is likely out of laziness, where rather than determining the correct word to use in a sentence, people just use one which describes nothing and is incorrect. Like how on media articles, it might say "[Name] created [media name]" – that tells us nothing about what they actually did. In this instance, it's directly contradictory, because we explicitly say there was some cause, and yet then claim that ventilation is "created".
Not quite. It's more than just the conclusion we have after the semi colon. This is a moot point, I agree, and I think both could probably be used here, but the semi is there, and may as well remain.
After "his conclusions differed from Robinson's", the article says "Goulding stated that as alcohol was naturally produced in the blood after death, it was not possible to confirm that Newson had been drinking prior to the crash." I don't see anything other than the conclusion stated in this sentence (that it was not possible to confirm whether Newson had been drinking). DesertPipeline (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Language changes. You cannot say that we are not allowed to use 'general usage' simply because you don't like the way a word has evolved over time. It's changed. Dictionaries reflect the change and as we're not talking about scientific use, "theory" is entirely correct. (It's not a "mistake" as you call it: it has changed).
Ditto
Semi colon is fine here. I think we're done: there is nothing here that trumps the consensus of PR and FAC, no real reason to change, no benefits in changing. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:78AB:6DA7:5309:9F9A (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Language changes. You cannot say that we are not allowed to use 'general usage' simply because you don't like the way a word has evolved over time. It's changed. Dictionaries reflect the change and as we're not talking about scientific use, "theory" is entirely correct. (It's not a "mistake" as you call it: it has changed).
A mistake becoming accepted does not make it correct. It simply means it has been accepted. The solution to that is to identify that a mistake has actually been made and to not follow along with it simply because everyone else is doing so. What is correct is not necessarily what is popular. We must all be willing to determine what is actually correct based on logical reasoning. DesertPipeline (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The language has changed from a narrow definition. It is accepted by major dictionaries and academic sources. Just because you don't like the change does not mean it is wrong or a mistake. We're in line with current accepted usage, the sources and dictionary definitions. I think we're done now. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:78AB:6DA7:5309:9F9A (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because words have specific meanings – that is their purpose. It is unhelpful to use a non-descriptive word – it isn't as if there are not words available to accurately describe what is being talked about. "Everyone is doing it" is merely an excuse. There is no reason to wilfully degrade language. DesertPipeline (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a sterile argument as between prescriptive and descriptive grammarians. Some of the latter, such as
Fowler, are prescriptive sometimes but generally take the view that current general usage is ipso facto correct, logic or historical usage notwithstanding. Tim riley talk 14:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
If an instance be needed for Desert Pipeline's benefit, by his/her precepts one should write "these data are", but nobody I know of has written that since the 1980s and now we all write "this data is", despite what we were taught in Latin lessons at school. Tim riley talk 16:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DesertPipeline STOP EDIT WARRING! What is it you don't understand about BRD and STATUS QUO. There is absolutely no excuse for your approach here. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1D4C:5458:CBD8:E267 (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The attitude of a few editors never fails to astonish me. Desert Pipeline, whose English is so poor that he/she imagines "between you and I" is grammatically correct, thinks the main author and all the reviewers at peer review and FAC were wrong, and he/she right. A little humility and respect for consensus might be in order. Tim riley talk 11:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      An article only gets promoted to Featured status if a strong consensus has been reached that it is in good shape as it stands. (And specifically that its prose as it stands is of a "professional standard".) Other than correcting the occasional obvious error it is unusual for significant changes to be made to the prose of FAs.
      WP:FAOWN says "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." (emphasis added). A little more consideration by editors may help re any fine tuning which this fine article may require. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Just wanted to chime in and say I support
    WP:FAOWN refers to significant changes. Fixing a comma splice is hardly a "significant" change. A "fine-tune" is not something that should require a talk page discussion. It should be achieved through consensus via compromise and good faith editing. It's a waste of everyone's time to get bogged down in these discussion every time someone thinks a comma is ungrammatical. At this point, multiple different editors coming here from various places have attempted to fix comma splices and weird clause constructions here, and have been reverted by the same IP /64 range without good policy-based rationale. Come on, folks. This is no one's personal article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, you were pinged in this comment, but it was malformed, so you may not have received it. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP reverts today

Some users (in particular @Shibbolethink: and @DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered:) this particular edit by a certain IP user. This page has certainly not been unfamiliar to a number of IPs over the last few months! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "a length of" – we've said a 16-metre-long coach, so it's clear what we're saying
Wasn't clear to me. or the other editors who reverted you.
  • "In total, 43 people died" ("in total" was added): of course we're going to have the total – it's not likely to be a partial figure. This is a workaround to avoid A) awkward semi-colon usage and B) awkwardly starting a clause with a number. Wikipedia isn't written in "formal English". It's written in encyclopedic style. Minor but important distinction. We write in a way our readers will most easily understand and read through. Not what English professors prefer. We can combine sentences, sure, but awkward semi-colon usage is probably not the way to do it. It's not very common and it disrupts the reading process to figure out where the different clauses begin and end.
  • it's not "universally" called "The London Underground". You have pointed out that we do not capitalize "The" when used mid-sentence. And correctly pointed out my mistake re: indefinite vs definite. Two fair points that I agree with. But we typically include the definite article when referring to it in this manner, as evidenced in the London Underground article. It's awkward to avoid this. We don't have to include it in the wiki-link (and probably shouldn't) but we should include the definite article.
  • The link is an improvement, the phrasing wasn't - so improve the phrasing. Consensus is about achieving a compromise which makes the most possible editors agreeable while complying with policy. It isn't about restoring your preferred version until you decide what should be in the article and which parts you agree with. This is no one's personal wikipedia article.
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Wasn't clear to me": it's blinding clear. "or the other editors who reverted you": editor singular, who I doubt considered every aspect of what they were reverting.
"This is a workaround": you have introduced extraneous text to avoid errors that weren't there in the first place? That's mind-boggling
"Wikipedia isn't written in "formal English". It's written in encyclopedic style": FAs are written in good formal language - which includes encyclopaedic style. There is nothing awkward about the semi colons (if the language had been considered "awkward, it would certainty never have got through FAC)
"You have pointed out that we do not capitalize "The"": No, that's not my point at all. "we typically include the definite article when referring to it in this manner": No, "we" don't.
"so improve the phrasing": I did, genius. You really ought to read what people say, as I was clear that I "semi put this back"
No-one is claiming it is anyone's personal article, but as this has been through a couple of community reviews, it takes a little more thought to undo it (not that it can never be changed, but that changes should be done carefully, not in such a slapdash manner as to detract from it). 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if the language had been considered "awkward, it would certainty never have got through FAC
This presupposes that FAC (and FA review) are infallible. If that were true, then the following text should not be on every FA talk (emphasis mine): Moorgate tube crash is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
FAOWN and other such guidance are about significant changes. Grammar and spelling fixes are typically considered minor or, at the very least, not significant. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bad writing should not be in an FA, particularly so prominent in the lead. The “In total” is bad writing. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:799C:B97D:4044:790A (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moorgate_tube_crash&oldid=1126893640"