Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 7 July 2005 London bombings article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

A fact from 7 July 2005 London bombings appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 18 September 2009.

Wikipedia

Daily article pageviews

Graphs do not work. You can go to the graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org.

This article contains a translation of 7 July 2005 London bombings from en.wikipedia.

VGA nom 2021[change source]

There are many complex sentences. They should be simple.

Example: "Almost one hour after the attacks on the London Underground, a fourth bomb exploded on the deck of a number 30 double-decker bus, a Dennis Trident 2 was run by Stagecoach London and travelling its route from Marble Arch to Hackney Wick."

Simpler: A fourth bomb exploded almost one hour after the attacks on the London Underground. It exploded on the deck of a number 30 double-decker bus. The bus was a Dennis Trident 2 from Stagecoach London. It was following the route from Marble Arch to Hackney Wick.

There are many long sentences in the article. You should break them up into shorter sentences. Sometimes this causes some repetition. That is ok. It is easier for language learners to read. --Gotanda (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, I've started working on fixing the more obvious cases of such, but will have a proper look for them later as I don't have much time on hand at the moment. Fixing26 (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotanda: I've worked on the majority of the cases of such that I could find. It should be mostly improved in the sense of shorter and simpler sentences. Fixing26 (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victims[change source]

I have two concerns here. In the article "victims" seems to be used only for people who died in the attacks. Injured people are also victims. Some people would even considered people who experienced the attacks without injuries to be victims. I am not sure how to do this simply, but the category "victims" should included dead and injured.

Next the section titled "Victims" is not really about the victims. It is a list of nationalities or places of origin of those who died. One could infer that the attacks were on the world at large, not just on London. Some context (referenced of course for NPOV) and a better subhead title would really improve this, I think. --Gotanda (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on this, only issue I'm having is in relation to defining those who died who were victims and distinguishing them from the attackers, who also died. I've went with '...52 deaths caused by the bombers, not including the deaths of the bombers.' for now. Fixing26 (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this to the best I can see at the moment, though if there are any alternatives I'd be welcoming them. Fixing26 (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing 16.9.21[change source]

I have edited up to "Effects and responses". I noted that it was not all in British English, which it should be according to topic. That is about half the changes I made. The rest were even more important: poor expressions and mis-phrasing. Everywhere I changed a synonym instead of the previous word, I did it so that the word was the one used by people in Britain. And I found some distressing grammatical mistakes. I'll try and do the second half as soon as possible. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've not finished, but so far the quality of the writing was, or is (I can't claim to have fixed all the issues) quite poor. I have made obvious adjustments, but overall I'm quite shocked that we should ever have thought the writing worthy of note at all. I have to assume no-one actually read the bulk of the article. I can't see how some of this got through otherwise. That's not necessarily a criticism of the individual editors who worked on it. It's rather a criticism of the impatience which allowed the page to be promoted without really looking at every sentence. I have to do this in stages, else the eyes glaze over... Of the importance of the event there is no question; of the page as an example of good writing, well, it was (and still partly is) almost an example of poor writing. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intro: the number of deaths (and injuries) should be reported in the first paragraph. It is probably the single most notable fact in the article. Macdonald-ross (talk)