Talk:Hatfield rail crash

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hatfield rail crash article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Hatfield 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
Date	Process	Result
October 18, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed

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.

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hertfordshire (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HertfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject HertfordshireTemplate:WikiProject HertfordshireHertfordshire articles

Trains: in UK / Operations Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 10, 2017

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Operations task force.

References

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

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

Overview

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

1a

Infobox

"over 70" - capitalise
Are you sure about that? MOS:HEADCAPS says to use capitals on the headers of infoboxes, but says nothing about any other fields. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say, as it is kind of the start of a sentence, it would be better to capitalise. But, as there is no guideline on it, I'll leave it up to you. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect pigsonthewing may be able to give us a definitive answer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sentence fragment, so as with a final full stop, an initial capital isn't really mandatory. But I would argue for consistency: consider the parameter |cause=Broken rail - either decapitalise that one to |cause=broken rail, or capitalise the one in question to |injuries=Over 70 --Redrose64 (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a convincing argument, so caps it is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"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

"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

no issues!

Aftermath

"estimate of a 19%" → "estimated 19

Done, also copyedited the sentence Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Court case

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]

2a

You link BBC News in REF6 when it is should be linked in REF5
Link The Daily Telegraph in REF23

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

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

@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]

"around 5 millimetres" → "around five millimetres" per MOS:SPELL09
How do you get the {{convert}} template to work with that? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Convert#Spell out numbers: ten miles. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already done (but if you could help with the remaining infobox issue upthread that would be most appreciated) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You link Driving Van Trailer twice in "Accident" section. Unlink the second per WP:OVERLINK

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

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]