Talk:1996 Maryland train collision/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) 00:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be taking on this review. I should have some feedback for you very soon, but otherwise please allow several days. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I'll need HighBeam access to verify many of the sources. I have applied at Wikipedia:HighBeam and stated it is specifically needed for this review. Judging by the page history the requests are responded to fairly quickly, so hopefully this won't take too long. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your taking the review on. For my part I'll see if I can reference some of these details via Newspapers.com, which can be verified without an account. I didn't have that access when I rewrote the article. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

HighBeam access granted, so I will now begin the review. Thanks for your patience! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Concerns

Accident

• What is meant by "Eastern (local) time" as opposed to "Eastern Standard Time" or simply EST?

Investigation

• multiple distractions to operate MARC train 286... Here the inline citation uses roman numerals to indicate the page number, unlike the rest of the references.
• I see why bullets may be used here, as there were a clear three changes recommended by the NTSB. However I think it may still better be presented in prose. What are your thoughts?

References

• I had a thought... what if we linked to Wikipedia:HighBeam where it reads (subscription required) in the references? That way we can inform the reader they are welcome to apply for free access through The Wikipedia Library. To be honest, I only discovered the resource by taking a wild guess and typing in WP:HIGHBEAM in the search bar and hitting enter.

Overall I think this article is very well-written. We should be able to address the above concerns quite easily, so I'm putting the article on hold for now. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think I meant to indicate that Eastern time was the local time, but I suppose that's self-evident. I've taken it out. The NTSB report uses roman numerals for the preface and Executive Summary, which was what was cited there. My intention with the bullets is to break up the prose paragraphs and draw the readers' attention to those points. It could be rendered as prose but I think the ideas would disappear into the section. The citation format for HighBeam is the recommended format so I'm loath to change it. I suspect the justification is that Wikipedia is written for its readers, and that we should avoid internal self-references wherever possible. Mackensen (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing such a good article! It was difficult to find things to complain about :) Your clarification pretty much tells me everything I need. List versus prose has it exceptions, and I think this is one of them. The HighBeam linkage makes sense I guess... I hate as the reader I can't verify the fact without paying for access, but as you say, the common reader would not be granted free access anyway. We should not disregard a source as acceptable just because it is not immediately accessible to the reader.

Y Again, excellent work. I hereby am passing this nomination. Congratulations! — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)