Talk:Hatfield rail crash

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Ritchie333 in topic GA Review
Good articleHatfield rail crash has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 18, 2016Good article nomineeListed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 17, 2017, October 17, 2020, and October 17, 2023.

References

edit

There should be plenty of good reference material at the Railway Safety Standards Board website http://www.rssb.co.uk as well as ramfications of the disaster, Cullen report etc. if someone has enough time to go through all of it. Davetracy 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

The track had been replaced with track from an Italian supplier which had been gauged at a metricised 4'8½", rounding the gauge down. The effect was that train wheels rode higher on the flanges of the wheel rather than on the wheel tyres themselves, repeatedly forcing the track apart beyond the design tolerance of the track chairs and sleepers. This cold working of the rail webs, the link between the rail surface and its seating, increased the metal granularity and microstress fractures in the webs leading to eventual fracture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.25.40.112 (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hatfield rail crash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

Review

edit

Overview

edit
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):  
    b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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

edit
Infobox
edit
Lead
edit
  • "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)Reply
Accident
edit
  • "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)Reply
Cause
edit

no issues!

Aftermath
edit
  • "estimate of a 19%" → "estimated 19
Done, also copyedited the sentence Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Court case
edit
  • 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Overall

edit

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)Reply

@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)Reply


Futher comments

edit

@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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Ritchie333: See Template:Convert#Spell out numbers: ten miles. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
I think that's now working. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

Close

edit

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)Reply