Talk:1950 Chicago streetcar crash

Hey team,

Really good work - I think that you've done some great research, and that this article is looking really good so far. The infobox and image are especially great

Here are a few things I'd like to see:

1. Copyediting: The info is fine, but it isn't super readable everywhere
2. A little more context for each of the sections
3. If you want to go above and beyond - a map of where it happened

Overall, I think this is great, and just needs a little polish. At this point, I'd recommend asking Ian, our content expert, for some feedback as well.

Looking forward to seeing this on Wikipedia!

-- Jdfoote (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review Feedback

Good work on getting this article out to the world, its looking really good. The use of sources in the article is solid. It goes a long way in creating a great foundation for the current article, as well as any future iterations that may pop up. As Smandlso pointed out, however, the organization of the article into a single Heading with multiple subheadings may not be ideal. By creating multiple headings you would not only create a more distinct structure for the article, but it would also provide spaces for future editors to come in and flesh out further details about the various aspects of the crash. Additionally, there is a bit of copywriting that should still happen. The current article is readable, but some sentences still have awkward wording or inconsistent use of grammar. Lastly, if it would be possible to find an image of the specific model of the streetcar(and not just a replica), that would be incredible -- although I understand copyright issues probably make that difficult. Despite these few things, the article is well researched and composed. It successfully creates a kernel for future edits to build off of, and successfully communicates all major details of the of the crash very well. Woottie (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Feedback

This page is looking good here in the WP mainspace! A few observations, possible changes, and additions:

• I like the way you've formatted the article by including background, how the crash occurred, the immediate aftermath, and the long-term aftermath. Perhaps each section could be slightly expanded and become their own main headings, but there may not be enough information on the subject to warrant doing so - you've certainly found strong news sources thusfar to prove the topic's notability.
• It's great that you've found and used the appropriate infobox for a "rail accident" which very succinctly details the content of your article. Given that this accident took place in 1950, that Damage value of $150,000 in the infobox is challenging to understand in today's terms - perhaps Template:Inflation could be something to include to automatically convert that amount into today's dollars. I would be on the cautious side with this, though, as the template notes it's really only meant for CPI values and uses some intricate syntax. Perhaps a more experienced Wikipedian could chime in!
• You've included a few relevant hyperlinks which is great, but as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, the general rule of thumb is to "only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article." On this page, State Street is linked to 4 times; I would consider only doing so once.
• I didn't see any major spelling or grammar issues, but the initial section under the "Crash" heading has some clunky wording with many (perhaps unnecessary) commas. I think rewording this section may go a long way in improving the clarity of the article.

Great work! Smandlso (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)