Talk:Mexico City Metro overpass collapse

Suggestions for improvement

The article has been nominated to appear at ITN. I've opposed solely on quality grounds. Referencing is excellent, well done. However, the article needs better structure. Suggest that

• Background
• Bridge collapse
• Rescue efforts
• Aftermath
• Investigation

might be a good structure. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, I've restructured the article according to your recommendations. Many of the sections still require expansion, but, after that, the article should be good to go. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 12:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@EDG 543: - it's already up! Mjroots (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots, oh, alright then lol. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 12:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Technical details about the repair

This tweet by the transport authority provides some explanation about the repair works done, maybe it will be useful if a graph is made based on these. --Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Pieceofmetalwork, how would you propose the tweet be used in a graphic? I believe if we can find an image which is royalty free to be included in the article, that would be informative and add value to the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

What does it mean?

In the section Background, it says:

Before the crash it had showed signs of decline and there were general concerns with the overall system. In March 2020, two trains collided in Tacubaya station after the driver did not follow the protocols causing the train to run out of brakes.

I don't know what "decline" means here - fewer passengers? "Concern" - for the passenger number? Safety and maintenance? Why are the decline and the concern in the same sentence? Also, what does it mean to "run out of breaks"? Did the train fail to break early enough to stop before it hit another train on the line? Or did the brakes wear out because of poor maintenance? (Then it is hardly the driver's fault, at least not exclusively?) The sources probably answer my questions; I haven't perused them. But I think the article itself should be clearer on these points.--Nø (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

You know, typical dilapidation? Wear and tear? Basically what makes Detroit or The Bronx dingy areas? Skippy2520 (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nø: The official version (about Tacubaya) was that for around 7 minutes the driver (and other people) entered the train several times. The train had the automatic braking system active, but it had to be changed to manual per protocols. The air brake system ran out of air and caused the train to go reverse from Observatorio to Tacubaya. It was propelled by a slope and reached 70 km/h before crashing the parked train. Most of it is at Tacubaya metro station#March 2020 train crash. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I see my concerns have now been addressed in the article - thanks!--Nø (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"overpass" vs "viaduct" title

I am moving the page back to Mexico City Metro overpass collapse per WP:RMUM as a bold, undiscussed move. It seems most English sources refer to it as an "overpass", and even the few that use "viaduct" also include "overpass". "viaduct" seems over WP:PRECISE for the title. Feel free to initiate a formal WP:RM request if there are objections.—Bagumba (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bagumba as overpass is the more commonly accepted term and less prone to confusion. It also complies with WP:MOS under "Opportunities for commonality". Jurisdicta (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

"An overpass ... is a bridge, road, railway or similar structure that crosses over another road or railway", says the article in question. That's not an accurate description of this lengthy section of elevated track, which runs down the middle of Av. Tláhuac above the median, rather than crossing it at right-angles as our own definition of 'overpass' would have it (take a look on Street View). A viaduct, in contrast, is "a specific type of bridge that consists of a series of arches, piers or columns supporting a long elevated railway or road", which is closer to what's going on here. It does sound a bit recondite, though, a bit 19th-century. And plenty of news sources are calling it an overpass. More discussion/alternatives needed? Moscow Mule (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Tláhuac's median is not infinite (like, let's say the one at Manuel Ávila Camacho Boulevard that is officially called an elevated viaduct), it is chopped by several streets and avenues. In any circumstance, most sources call this bridge an overpass, so WP:COMMONAME applies. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, looking at Google Maps, the elevated bridge passes over many intersections, which makes it reasonable that the portion in question could be an overpass. Overpass is what most sources call it, and barring an obvious, detectable error, it seems like WP:OR to consider it otherwise. It is technically a viaduct, but I wonder if that is a term that is common in non-technical English for this type of transit bridge. I'dl defer to sources and use overpass..—Bagumba (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Can also refer to the picture here to see the intersections in crosses near Olivos.—Bagumba (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Image got updated?

File:Incidente Línea 12 Ciudad México 2021.jpg is the image currently in the infobox. It currently depicts the scene at nighttime. However, when I was last editing it, it was a daytime image. I am sure of this because I checked the other Wikis I wrote the articles to. But I don't see the old image in the Wikimedia Commons page's history. What's going on?? Skippy2520 (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: It's at the bottom, with the same title but with "(2)" after it. It must have gotten moved. This is kind of confusing and I don't think it's very good, because the new File:Incidente Línea 12 Ciudad México 2021.jpg is dark and hard to see, which is the same problem with the old image on this article, File:AccidenteMetroCDMX20210503.png. I'll ask on Commons. Skippy2520 (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Both files were uploaded under the same page, which is incorrect as every image needs its own page. You can find them at [1]. And don't move pages around solely because you want attention. Doing so will get you blocked. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems an editor overwrited the original with a new version ("Marcia Beatriz Einsfeld uploaded a new version of File:Incidente Línea 12 Ciudad México 2021.jpg"), and then a Commons admin moved that new version to a new filename w/ "(2)" (""Sreejithk2000 moved page File:Incidente Línea 12 Ciudad México 2021.jpg to File:Incidente Línea 12 Ciudad México 2021 (2).jpg without leaving a redirect"). It all might be moot, as those files got nominated for deletion for licensing concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Can we please stop adding "at least"?

This is the most overdone word ever and its become far too overused. 24.138.192.89 (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

You already proposed "so far" and "to date", and people decided to change them back to "at least". This is something you can't control. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Those proposals suffer from MOS:DATED. Typically use "at least" because the statement remains true even if the counts increase before the next edit.—Bagumba (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Girder supporting beam

@Goszei:: You added the hyphen back saying "it's a beam that is supporting a girder, no? therefore a girder-supporting beam". From my layman understanding, a girder is a type of support beam. So I would treat this like "laptop personal computer", not "laptop-personal conputer". Is there a different convention in the construction industry? My misunderstanding is that it was a girder itself that broke, not some other beam that was itself supporting a girder (Earlier, she said it appeared a girder had given way on the overpass. [2])—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I meant "understanding", but my point seemed to get across anyways.—Bagumba (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I was going off something I read in the LA Times story [3], but after reading it again I have realized I made a mistake (I thought it was a vertical beam supporting the girder that had failed). Yes, a girder is a horizontal beam, and in this case, it is suspected that a girder is what cracked and failed. I will attempt a fix now. — Goszei (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

For once, it's not me misreading something. Cheers. —Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Incidente Línea 12 Ciudad México 2021 (2).jpg (discussion)
• Incidente Línea 12 Ciudad México 2021.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Missing people

According to the city's government, those reported missing "surely" are not related to the accident as they disappeared "3/4 days" before the collapse (one of them disappeared 6 months ago). All of them were commuters of the line so that's why they were reported as such, according to the official statement. I don't know how to include this, or if the current info should be removed. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mexico City Metro overpass collapse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Serprinss (talk · contribs) 04:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

i am planning review this article. so far i have noticed the following:

• some sections appear to need the template:main hatnote,

• Added.

• a better source for the owner of Mexico City metro would be helpful maiby look at the article Mexico City metro for insperation. Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 04:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• The metro is owned by the city and it is operated by the Sistema de Transporte Colectivo, a decentralized public organization.

• the source cited in the statement "it is the second-largest metro system in the Americas, after the New York City Subway system." only says it is the second largest metro system in north america and doesn't mention the New York City Subway.

• Replaced with the Washington Post source.

• i am unable to read the spanish sources if someone could verify them that would be apreciated

• You'll need to request a second opinion for that.

• the new york times source doesn't seem to mention a fire on Line 4 Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 05:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Removed.

• in the statment "but it suffered multiple construction delays before its inauguration in October 2012 by Ebrard and president Felipe Calderón." it states who inaugurated it howver the sources do not apear to mention the inaugurator

• El Universal implied it, but I replaced it with another that directly says it.

• the relevent quote form the book "Infraestructura: Línea 12 del Metro" would be helpfull since i am unable to access it

• The source is used twice for two different statements. I can't quote it there; at most here:

• Page 40: "En la línea 12 darán servicio trenes de rodadura férrea, modelo FE-10 de siete vagones. La longitud de estas máquinas es de 140 metros y pesan 238 toneladas, están diseñadas para alcanzar una velocidad máxima—de servicio—de 80 kilómetros por hora y tienen capacidad para 1,900 pasajeros. [...] Los vagones están conectados entre sí para facilitar la distribución homogenea del pasaje; cada uno cuenta con dos espacios acondicionados para personas con sillas de ruedas, ubicados cerca de las puertas de acceso." ["On Line 12, seven-car FE-10 model rail rolling trains will be in service. These trains are 140 meters long and weigh 238 tons, are designed to reach a maximum—service—speed of 80 kilometers per hour, and have a capacity for 1,900 passengers. [...] The cars are connected to each other to facilitate the homogeneous distribution of passengers; each one has two spaces for wheelchair users, located near the access doors."]
• Page 54: "Los intertramos [elevados] construidos con una serie de columnas de concreto que soportan dos vigas metálicas paralelas, constituyen una solución súmamente sencilla, ligera y eficiente, las estaciones elevadas son igualmente ligeras a base de estructura metálica, son totalmente transparentes y cuentan con una iluminación y ventilación natural que repercutirá en importantes ahorros durante su operación. Uno de los retos más importantes de este proyecto fue el de las cimentaciones de tramos y estaciones, por la gran complejidad del suelo de la zona, donde se alterna el suelo rocoso que a veces aflora en la superficie, con enormes depósitos compresibles, condiciones a veces colindantes." ["The [elevated] interstations, built with a series of concrete columns supporting two parallel metallic beams, constitute a very simple, light and efficient solution. The elevated stations are also light, based on a metallic structure, are totally transparent and have natural lighting and ventilation that will result in significant savings during operation. One of the most important challenges of this project was the foundations of the sections and stations, due to the great complexity of the soil in the area, where rocky soil alternates with huge compressible deposits, sometimes contiguous conditions."]

i will look more later Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 05:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• the new york times does not mention slowing down to 5km/h and ap news doesn't mention derailment.Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 08:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Split.

• based on google translate the source for the statement "In a non-public report, published by SinEmbargo.mx after the collapse, SYSTRA added that the wear and tear of the work was unusual for a project no more than two years old, which they attributed to "mediocre quality" works. The group concluded that to avoid future problems, the Metro system would need to find the causes of the problems and replace them altogether. Otherwise, it was suggested to create a maintenance manual based on the needs of the line to maintain the line in a perpetual manner." doesn't state that they would need to find the cause of the problems. the source also says the report included the statment "documents provided by the authorities were not sufficient to ensure "the lasting maintenance of the installations"" as the reason for a new maintenance manual.

• I have reworded it, but the source does mention them: "El documento es reiterativo en señalar que sin la identificación y las correcciones del origen de los “desgastes anormales”, todo tratamiento sería meramente temporal y los defectos reaparecerán muy rápidamente." ["The document reiterates that without identifying and correcting the source of the "abnormal wear", any treatment would be merely temporary and the defects will reappear very quickly."]

• the abc11 source states "The city's magnitude 7.1 earthquake in 2017 revealed some structural defects that experts say should have resulted in a total closure and complete inspection of the line. Instead, authorities applied some patchwork fixes and re-opened it." the lack of inspection may be worth mentioning Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 11:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Added.

Status query

Serprinss, Tbhotch, where does this review stand? I don't see any edits to this page for over a month, though there have been quite a few to the article itself, including a couple earlier this week. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for instructions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The original reviewer appears to have not edited in more than a month. I would be interested in taking on this GAN if you would like to fail and re-nominate. Wait as long as you want for @Serprinss: if you re-nominate it, drop me a note on my talk page and I will pick it up unless someone else beats me to it. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

RecycledPixels, in many cases, a new reviewer will simply start a second review section on the review page. This was Serprinss's first review, and they haven't made any edits at all on Wikipedia for over a month; it's clear to me that this review has been abandoned. Please feel free to take over the review at this time. Thank you very much for being willing to do a review. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

References

GA Review by RecycledPixels

I'm not sure whether this is the best way to do this, or if it would be cleaner to just do a quickfail and re-nomination of the article, and I'd immediately accept it. In any case, I'll try it this way, we don't need to make it any more complicated than it has to be. I will start this review from scratch and not attempt to pick up where Serprinss left off; we definitely have different review styles. I prefer to use the GA review table, which keeps me on task of evaluating just the GA criteria without getting lost in the weeds or bringing up MOS issues that aren't part of the criteria. The table is just a personal preference, although I realize that it can make threaded comments and responses difficult. Feel free to invent your own way of responding to my comments, whether it is in the table boxes in bold, italic, or colored text, or in a section immediately following the table. Generally, I also add a section after the table of other suggestions and comments that I have. Anything I mention outside the table in such a section is a suggestion only, and is not considered part of the pass/fail criteria of GA, so feel free to respond or disregard it if I make suggestions there. I will begin the first part of the reviews shortly. I usually take the review in several steps, and not normally in order. Please don't respond or edit this GA review page or the article itself until I've completed item #7, the "overall assessment" field at the end, which is my sign that I have completed my steps, the ball is in your court, and I will wait for you to respond. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. I just added a minor update. From now on, I'll wait until you complete the review as I understand there are too many links here. Thanks for the review. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose needs to be cleaned up quite a bit, there are some very difficult-to-understand sections in the article that don't meet the "clear and concise" standard of GA. Just a couple that jump out at me are things like "The city created a special commission to investigate the causes and to hold officials accountable for the errors that led to the closure,[35] including Ebrard, who went into exile in France in 2015, claiming that he was the target of a political vendetta by Mancera.", or "In 2015, the Superior Auditor of the Federation (Auditoría Superior de la Federación; ASF) determined that there were twelve irregularities during the construction process, including incompatibilities between the wheels of the trains and the rails, which could cause instabilities, and that train operations were within the accepted limit of safety.", or "Before the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic residents had informed the authorities that the stretch was steep and the girders were bent.", just as three examples. It's just too hard to figure out what the article is trying to say. Others sentences have basic grammar issues. Just three examples grabbed at random: "Technischer Überwachungsverein recommended to replace the trains due to the excessive wear of the wheels and rails caused by the mismatching between both." or "Passenger testing began in June 2012 and in the subsequent months, around 10,000 ties were recorded damaged due to vibrations." and "They further informed that the authorities were not able to ensure that the facilities would have a "lasting maintenance" and suggested to them to create a maintenance manual based on the needs of the line to maintain it perpetually." The writing of the article needs quite a bit of copyediting, which is outside the scope of a GA review. A couple of suggestions would be to reduce or eliminate the use of passive voice in the article, which tends to make it difficult to link the verb and the noun, and to significantly reduce the number of compound sentences in the article, which also decreases readability.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	WP:LEAD issues: The lead section should summarize the article and should not contain significant information that is not contained within the body of the article. The statement in the lead "a girder supporting an overpass carrying Line 12 of the Mexico City Metro collapsed beneath a passing train..." is inconsistent with the body's statement "the section between columns 12 and 13 collapsed when a beam supporting two girders failed, causing the last two train cars to fall off the track.". Both of the statements seem to be inconsistent with the investigations, which pointed at the failure of the Nelson studs that attached the steel beams to the concrete deck, which caused an overload of the steel beams and the braces that kept them separated. The beams buckled inward and collapsed, but i'm going to being this up further in section 3a. WP:LAYOUT issues: Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading. The very short "Reactions" section should not be broken up into subsections. I'd probably elevate the "Issues" level-3 section to a level-2 header, and improve the descriptiveness of the section title. WP:WTW issues: Some words to watch issues. Under WP:REALTIME I tagged a couple of examples of problems with the {{when}} template. Under WP:WEASEL I tagged a couple of examples with the {{by whom}} template. I didn't track down all of those types of problems, just a few to illustrate what I'm talking about.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Inline citations are used and after a glance through them it looks like citation templates are appropriately used. Although I did end up adding some maintenance tags to the article, I didn't feel the need to add any citation needed tags.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There are 145 sources in the article, so I only planned to spot-check a few of them, so I went through the relatively short "Protests" section. Neither of the included sources mentioned the spray-painting of "It wasn't an accident- it was negligence" on station walls, although a twitter photo included in one of the articles does depict a photo of that. The article itself said that the protesters were spray-painting "No fue accidente, fue el Estado" on the walls. In the next sentence, the provided source does not mention any banners that read "It was not an accident, those responsible have first and last names". It does say that the protestors were shouting that, but neither the article or the included photo depict any banners with that. The next sentence says that local residents set up an altar in the nearby shopping mall, while the source says it was actually in the parking lot of the mall, not in the mall. I didn't look at many of the other sources in the article, but one task that also needs to be done is a thorough search through all of the included sources to make sure they say that the article is attributing to them. The fact that I found so many in such little effort makes me fear that there are others. I don't have access to reference #26, but the statement in the rolling stock section that the FE-10 trains have a capacity of 1,900 passengers seems very high, and contradicts the FE-10 (Mexico City Metro) article, which states the maximum capacity of a train is 700 passengers.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I do not see major issues with original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Spot checks did not turn up any copyright violations or instances of plagiarism or close paraphrasing.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article needs a cleanup of the Investigations section to more clearly explain what happened and what caused the collapse of the section. Any of the reactions of people who disagreed or agreed with any of the investigations can be included in a separate "Reactions" section or a paragraph at the end of the Investigations section. It's too confusing as a reader to cycle between technical explanations and reading about what Sheinbaum said about the NY Times article, for example.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There are sections in the article where seemingly random facts seem to be inserted. An example, from the "issues" section, is "In March 2014, 17 months after the line's opening, during the governorship of Miguel Ángel Mancera, the elevated section was closed for a further 20 months to repair technical and structural faults, including Olivos and Tezonco stations." What does the fact that Miguel Mancera was the governor have to do with the repairs? Why the mention of the two train stations? When you close the elevated section, I assume you also close the stations located on the elevated sections.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Some of the naming of the political figures involved in the bulk of the article come across as painting scarlet letters on those personalities, deserved or not. Definitely mention them in the contexts of the follow-up investigations that took place and the blame that had been officially and unofficially ascribed to them, but limit it to that section. Naming who was the governor of the state when maintenance issues came up seem tiptoe very close and sometimes slightly over the non-neutral line. The section in the "Immediate aftermath" section about Serranía comes across as especially non-neutral. The last paragraph of the "Immediate aftermath" section also crosses the line, just as a couple of examples. The more I read and re-read the article, the more neutrality problems I come across.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable without content disputes or edit wars. No outstanding talk page issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are tagged with plausible copyright statuses, no fair use images used.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Alt text is present in images. Captions of some of the images need improvement. It is very unclear what the photo of the girders is describing, and whether the image is relevant to the topic. Tell the reader what to look for in the photo to identify the part that failed, or give other explanations of why that photo is there. The body of the article says that a beam supporting two girders failed, the image caption says that the girders collapsed that night. The image of the Day of the Dead altars in the protests section of the article needs a better caption of why it is in this part of the article, such as identifying the "corruption kills" sign in the image, or otherwise better explaining the relevance of the photo to the subject matter. No issues with any of the other images.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, the article covers an interesting topic and I think there is a lot of potential. However, there are also a lot of issues with the article, and I don't think it's ready to be a Good Article at this point. If you feel up to the task of taking all of this on in the next few days, I'm happy to put this nomination on hold, but I think that a few days is an unrealistic timeline to accomplish everything it needs. For now I'll put it on hold, and if the time comes where you are ready for a second reading, I'll take a look. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@RecycledPixels: Thanks for the review. It accomplished more than the requested peer review. Unfortunately, as I continue reading it I percieve you will not consider the article to pass the GA review regardless if I correct your concerns within the week. For example:

• "I don't have access to reference #26, but the statement in the rolling stock section that the FE-10 trains have a capacity of 1,900 passengers seems very high, and contradicts the FE-10 (Mexico City Metro) article, which states the maximum capacity of a train is 700 passengers." I cited the source as it is written, with its respective translation, above in the review Serprinss was performing. Even though Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the article specifies it is at 700 passengers at four railcars (under an unsourced section), you have prejudged the whole article upon what you considered to be previous ommisions/additions, ommisions/additions that sometimes you think they are out of place, ommisions/additions you sometimes consider vital to be/not be there.
• The sentence "Since that night, service on the entirety of Line 12 has remained closed.[when?]" does include the "when". Of course it can be improved to "the night of the accident", but does not warrant a "when" as it includes a period of time, if anything it would be a "clarify". This is important because you say that "Others sentences have basic grammar issues" but you don't explain which are those issues. You just expect the other party to guess those issues.

Although I would normally go through the process, when the reviewer says things like "I think that a few days is an unrealistic timeline to accomplish everything it needs" it is clear the reviewer has no intentions to continue the process and prefers to assume the nominator is unable to accomplish the requested goals, regardless of their complexity.

Because of this, I will work on your commentary during the week, but outside the process, then I will request a copy-editor to check it, and then I will re-nominate it. Thanks for your time. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 15:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: Ok, I'll go ahead and close the GA nomination then so you can re-nom it when you are ready. I wasn't saying at all that you won't be able to address all the issues in a week, I was just stating an opinion based on my own abilities to address all the issues within that timeframe. Also note that the examples of problems I've given in each section are just to illustrate the issues. Once I come across 3 examples, I stop looking... it doesn't mean there aren't others. It's just clear that that section of Wikipedia:Good article criteria hasn't been met, and finding more examples of that isn't going to change that. I hope I made that clear. To answer your other questions... I see what you are saying about having answered the question about reference 26... I actually hadn't read the other GAN review before posting that note. The number 1,900 passengers just jumped out at me when I was first reading the article. When I was going through and making comments about WP:V issues, I mentioned that the FE-10 (Mexico City Metro) article said 700 passengers. I wasn't trying to say that I trust one source more than the other, but I noted the inconsistencies. That other article even has a third number in the infobox, 1,471 passengers, that is sourced to the CAF.net site. Whatever the actual number is isn't that important, the point that I was trying to make was that the sources should be gone through to make sure that they say what the article says they say. As to the second point, the article isn't updated automatically. Someone has to come along and change the facts, so saying "the line is closed" is likely to become outdated and inaccurate at some point in the future. Instead, the article should say something along the lines of "as of March 2022, the line remained closed with a projected opening date sometime in late Summer 2022," for example. Then if nobody comes along to edit the article once the line is reopened, the accuracy of the article isn't impacted. It was clear that the line was closed at the time of the accident. What I was highlighting is the dangers of using present tense in the article to describe things that are likely to change in the near future. Hope that helps. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Additional suggestions

Anything in this section is a suggestion for improvement and will not be considered part of the GA pass/fail criteria.