Wikipedia:Peer review/List of UK Caving fatalities/archive1

This peer review discussion has been closed.

List of UK Caving fatalities

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to present it as a candidate for a featured list in the future.

Thanks, Langcliffe (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: You need to move the title to "List of US caving facilities" Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are referring to the capitalisation of "Caving" rather than to the words "UK" and "fatalities", thank you. You're absolutely right, and I'll set up a REDIRECT. Langcliffe (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've now moved the page to one with appropriate capitalisation as suggested - I hope that the Peer Review process can cope! Langcliffe (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, new to this, so for what it's worth. First, the lead paragraph has too much detail information, yet at the same time lacks other pertinent information. I'd leave the opening paragraph, and move the rest to the body of the article, under the "List" section. But then the lead section, I feel should have a discussion of the different types of deaths which are included in the totals (e.g. falls, asphyxiation, drowning, etc.); it should also note any organizations (if any) that track these type of statistics; it might also include a line or two regarding deaths prior to "the modern era". Second, if you do move those 3 paragraphs from the lead section, each might be expanded and footnoted. Especially footnoted, even if you don't move them. Third, the tables are well set up and organized. However, I would go through them and remove all the bad page links (I could be wrong about this, but if there isn't a page, it shouldn't be formatted as if it did). I definitely like the sortable tables, and very well researched, the citations among the tables are very well done. I would also remove the bad page links outside of the tables. I hope this helps. Onel5969 (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered and helpful reply. I agree with almost all your points and will action them as soon as possible. On the points with which I have some difficulty:

1. Unfortunately, there are no organisations which track these deaths.
2. Whilst I will move much of the lead section to the List section as you suggest, I am not so sure about the necessity for referencing the points as they simply pick out interesting snippets from the list which are fully referenced within the list.
3. I can fully understand your point about not dabbing the locations for which there are no articles. I did it in this way as many of the locations will, in the fullness of time, have their own article but it will be difficult to maintain the list to match such changes. One could also say that the list is over-dabbed, as some caves are dabbed several times, but I did it this way as it could be difficult for the reader to find the appropriate dab for the entry he is interested in.

Thank you again. Langcliffe (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, my comments regarding citations and dabbing were only due to my understanding of the MOS guidelines on those two issues. From an aesthetic standpoint, the first time a fact is mentioned is the best place to put a citation. Then, you could reiterate that citation in the actual table for clarity. I also understand your point about dabbing, but if and when a person creates a page regarding the currently vacant subject, they might not name it what you named it in your article. I think the only way to alleviate this issue is to do a periodic review of the current events which have no individual pages. Hopefully, if other authors do write about the individual events, they will see that there is a page listing all of them, and link to it (that's what I try to do, anyway). Onel5969 (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)