Talk:Valley Falls train collision/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 21:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, very close to GA. Just a few minor corrections and some suggestions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and lede

• Link daguerreotype in the caption
• Add alt text for images
• Comma in the second sentence should be a semicolon.
• I'd add a sentence about what happened in the collision (the trains involved, etc) to the first paragraph.

  All of these items done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Incident

• Do any of the sources mention how many cars were on the southbound train?

  Eight cars. Mentioned in the prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

• I would recommend left-aligning these images. Having them with the text (rather than pushed below the infobox) is more important than any potential sandwiching.

  Fair enough, done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• I recommend adding {{inflation}} for the half-million cost.

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Any information on when the double tracking was completed?

  The last section between Providence and Worcester was completed in 1885, though the work did begin shortly after the accident. I can't say when the section in question was double-tracked, though we would logically assume it would be one of the first locations to be addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm doubtful of the claim that the P&W had the first electronic signal system in the US. The Fitchburg Cutoff had track circuits installed in 1876, and several other lines shortly thereafter. Perhaps this was the first of a specific signal system type - are there any further details in the source?

  I'm in the middle of a move at the moment (going back to Connecticut) and I don't have the book in question with me right now. For the time being I'm just going to remove the "first" claim from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

References

• Source 6 is weirdly formatted, and the publisher shouldn't just be the website url.

  I just removed it entirely. It was present from before I expanded the article, and the Train Wrecks book covers everything in that paragraph. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Source 8 has an inconsistent date format.

  Addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Sources 7 and 9 are duplicates and should be merged with {{rp}} for pagination

  Given we are only talking about 3 pages in the book, I just merged the references entirely and didn't worry about reference pages. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Add an external links section for the commonscat link

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Not a GA issue, but looks like the link to this article in the bottom navbox should be corrected.

  Good catch, I renamed the article and didn't remember the navbox. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Overall

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Great job - passing now! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.