Talk:2015 Wootton Bassett rail incident/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 01:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
~~The lead paragraph should be adjusted. Now it reads:~~
The Wootton Bassett SPAD incident refers to an incident in the United Kingdom where a steam-hauled charter train passed a signal at danger (SPAD) and subsequently came to a stand across a high speed mainline junction. Another train, that had right of way, had passed through the junction 44 seconds earlier and no collision occurred. The incident occurred near Wootton Bassett Junction, in Wiltshire on 7 March 2015.

I was looking at WP:GAs about train incidents/collisions (June 2009 Washington Metro train collision, Hatfield rail crash, Eckwersheim derailment) and it seems to me that the date/time/place should be introduced earlier in the lead with more direct language, something along the lines of:
The Wootton Bassett SPAD incident occurred on 7 March 2015 when a steam-hauled charter train in the United Kingdom passed a signal at danger and subsequently stopped, blocking a high speed mainline track.

Please understand, this is just an example. Would love to discuss further. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lede rewritten to put date in first sentence, expanded slightly. Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely-done. I think the change makes the incident and its notability more clear. Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
The dead link has to be taken care of. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah the Wayback Machine - it's great ain't it? Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool and found no issues. Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Please see "Timeline" section below. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The changes make my above concerns moot. Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Thank you for fixing the few issues that I found. Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ref #54 is dead: http://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/news/west-coast-railway-court-date-deferred - No matches found. Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as a dead link. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Criteria 2b the dead link ref will have to either use wayback machine linkage or will need to be completely replaced for the article to pass a GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted, wasn't as hard as I thought it would be. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

I am finding the through-line of this subject hard to follow, but am not sure if this is because of my unfamiliarity with the subject or not. Will do some more readthroughs to see if I can explain my thoughts on this a little more clearly. Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts - The article shifts from the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD to the 2015 Sherwood Forester incident to the 2014 previous (lineside fire) incident. As a reader I find the timeline confusing - is this an article about the particular SPAD incident or about WCRC's various operating issues and legal difficulties? I understand wanting to provide background about WCRC's operations but am thinking the content about its other problems could be edited down somewhat. Shearonink (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you for the review and for explaining what you found confusing re the timeline. Have had a little think about this and have made changes.

I moved the "45231 Sherwood Forester incident and further prohibition" section below the "Fallout" and above the Prosecution section. It has been retitled "Subsequent incident and further ban". I'm not in favour of having the previous incident section above the main incident as I feel that by doing so would take the focus away from the main incident.

The article is about the incident, but it is also about the consequences of the incident (ban, lifting, further ban, prosecution). This is why the background info is also needed (Company attitude, previous incidents - Bell Busk was not the only incident, but it was the most significant and serves with the main incident to illustrate the underlying causes well). Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken. I agree the other incidents are important to keep in the article, I was just thinking for a reader (particularly one who is unfamiliar with the subject) that the previous order of paragraphs was slightly confusing to the timeline. Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]