Talk:December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment/GA1

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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 17:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use Done, Fixed, Added, Not done, Doing..., or Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —♠Vami _IV†♠ 17:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Another one :) –♠Vami _IV†♠ 17:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vami IV, thanks. Let's also ping Daniel Case as co-nom. epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: Thanks. I have printed the article out to do a deep copyedit; perhaps I should get that done today. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait on that copyedit, then. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 11:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: Due to Passover, I won't be able to do any editing from tonight until Thursday evening at the earliest. I am still committed to addressing your concerns with the article. Thanks for your patience and stay safe. @Epicgenius and Daniel Case: Thanks so much for helping out!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: I am ready for comments whenever you are. Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - @Vami IV: Are there any other remaining issues with the article? Thanks.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedits and mapping

@Vami IV and Epicgenius: I have finished the copy edit and also, per the notes I took as I was doing it, updated it regarding the disposition of some of the lawsuits, which yielded the now-significant fact that this has become the costliest accident in Metro-North's history due to the $60 million+ in payouts and settlements.

The one other thing I'm wondering is if we could do better than my Inkscape-made map of the accident site (that big black block is supposed to be an "N") ... actually, the question wouldn't be can we do better, it's how. Maybe we could use that mapping technology we didn't have back then (or in the infobox at least), but OTOH it does seem like quite a few other train wreck articles have maps like these showing not only the vicinity but where the cars came to rest. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: You mean like Kartographer? epicgenius (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Yup, that's what I meant ... didn't know what it was called. We didn't have it back in 2013-14. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, are you planning to make the map or should I do it? If you want to make the map, you can install KartoEditor on your Commons common.js page (similar to what I have done). Alternatively, use GeoJSON or some other tool to create the necessary JSON. epicgenius (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if we want it sooner rather than later, someone who knows how to do it should do it rather than someone learning how ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, OK, then I might be able to do this later. epicgenius (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

There should be no citations in the lead. Everything in the lead is supported by the article prose.

WP:LEADCITE doesn't completely bar cites from the intro. The two things I have decided to leave cites in for are extraordinary claims, IMO, of the "only" "Most/least" or "first" type, that should be cited in introes. Not just for that, but because as anyone who regularly maintains an article with those claims in its intro can tell you, that type of IP-busybody reader who never goes deeper into the article than the intro never tires of putting in "{{fact}}" tags on things like that, and it gets a little tiring to continually remove them and then have to explain why in the edit summary.

Just my experience. Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

~~Footnotes A and B lack citation.~~
- @Vami IV: Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accident

~~The content of Footnote C should fill out "Fatalities", or it should be dissolved into "Accident".~~

That was a consequence of the discussion above, rather a way to dodge having a lack of consensus either way on an issue that policy says is to be decided on an article-by-article basis. I have no problem including it, but some people feel very strongly about not doing so in any circumstance, and to me the endnote was the best compromise at the time. Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, noted. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 21:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Effects

~~[...] with delays due to reduced speeds and activity in the accident area. Insert an "albeit" before "with".~~
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The next morning, many of the 26,000 who commute to the city via the Hudson Line were tolerant of the inconveniences and detours in stride. Recommend abridging this to "many of the 26,000 commuters going to New York City via the Hudson Line [...]"
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph of "Service and repairs" does not feel encyclopedic to me. "We're living like kings and queens" compared to the grieving families of the dead. Especially rubs me the wrong way. The abundance of weasel words is also undesirable.
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Some commuters temporarily switched to buses, or drove themselves. Combine this with whatever becomes of paragraph 3.~~
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

In mid-March 2014, the agency released its report to Congress on the results of Deep Dive. Metro-North, it said, had a "deficient safety culture." The FRA identified "three overarching safety concerns: No citation given.

That's actually the one at the end of the graf. But I'll put it at the end of the bulleted list as well. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~From the train event recorders, it determined [...] Who/what is "it" here?~~
- Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~[...] a New Windsor man who had been on the train filed suit. Eddie Russell [...] Is Russell the New Windsor man?~~

Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rockefeller, who retired on a full disability [...] When did he retire?~~
~~[...] sued the MTA for $10 million [...] When?~~

Fixed I realized the second graf should have come first in this section, and once I made that change, it flows much better. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

References are credible. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~The external links in Citations [20], [28], [29], [30], [33], [51], [53], [54], and [57] are throwing errors in External Link check. [36], [47], and [50] are redirects.~~ –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vami IV: Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA progress

Article passes CopyVio scanner. No disambiguation links are present. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 17:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are relevant to the article and free/tagged. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 18:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.