Talk:Hatfield rail crash/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Yellow Dingo (talk · contribs) 05:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Taking. I'll post the full review soon. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Review

Overview

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Detalied Review

1a

Infobox

• "over 70" - capitalise

  Are you sure about that? MOS:HEADCAPS says to use capitals on the headers of infoboxes, but says nothing about any other fields. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  I'd say, as it is kind of the start of a sentence, it would be better to capitalise. But, as there is no guideline on it, I'll leave it up to you. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  I suspect pigsonthewing may be able to give us a definitive answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  It's a sentence fragment, so as with a final full stop, an initial capital isn't really mandatory. But I would argue for consistency: consider the parameter |cause=Broken rail - either decapitalise that one to |cause=broken rail, or capitalise the one in question to |injuries=Over 70 --Redrose64 (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  That's a convincing argument, so caps it is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• "A root cause of the accident was a lack of good communication, so that all staff were aware of maintenance procedures." - Rephrase. Reads like two random phrases mashed together. Maybe something along the lines of, "A root cause of the accident was a lack of good communication to the staff about maintenance procedures."

I've rewritten this to get rid of the passive voice, and it seems to read better now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Accident

• "At the time of impact" → "At the time of derailment"
• "following the impact" → "following the derailment"

Rather than reword this, I've removed the first "at the time of impact" as I don't think it's necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Cause

no issues!

Aftermath

• "estimate of a 19%" → "estimated 19

Done, also copyedited the sentence Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Court case

• In the first sentence of this paragraph you state "five individuals" and list five names but then you "The six people" - Fix the inconsistency

It's definitely five, also renamed to "managers" per the source Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

2a

• You link BBC News in REF6 when it is should be linked in REF5
• Link The Daily Telegraph in REF23

Done; by the way, I personally recommend not referring to references by number, as a copyedit that reorders paragraphs and sentences can rearrange the whole sequence so things don't make sense anymore. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah normally, I would post a permalink of what edition I'm referring to for the ref numbers, but as I didn't think there would be many changes or ref number changes, I didn't bother for this GAN. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Overall

Great article, probably the best I have reviewed. A few minor issues so putting on hold. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yellow Dingo: I have addressed all the issues; can you have a look and see if there's anything else? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Futher comments

@Ritchie333: The only further comments I have are:

• For the "Judge dismisses Hatfield rail manslaughter charges" ref add Mark Milner as the author

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• The external link "Health & Safety Executive page on the Hatfield crash" is dead

Swapped to Wayback Machine link. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• "around 5 millimetres" → "around five millimetres" per MOS:SPELL09

  How do you get the {{convert}} template to work with that? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  Template:Convert#Spell out numbers: ten miles. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  Already done (but if you could help with the remaining infobox issue upthread that would be most appreciated) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• You link Driving Van Trailer twice in "Accident" section. Unlink the second per WP:OVERLINK

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: See Template:Convert#Spell out numbers: ten miles. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that's now working. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

— Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Close

OK I'm now satisfied that this article meets the the criteria so I am passing this GAN. I'll leave that infobox point up to you to do what you like with. Congratulations! — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)