Talk:Railway accidents in Vietnam/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 13:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The first sentence "Railway accidents in Vietnam are common." says absolutely nothing, is vague, POV and unencyclopedic.
The second sentence, "According to statistics released by national railway company Vietnam Railways..." is very crude, as it does not portray any useful information, just identifies a source. This sort of source identification is only necessary when the reliability of the source needs to be evaluated by the reader.
"one accident occurred on Vietnam's railways every day" is a vague number, how about reporting the number of accidents per year.
When is "recent"? This is a weasel word which could mean anything from the past few months to since the 1990s. Be specific!
The lead fails to link to 'railway accident'.
The statistics section presents statistics for only the years 2007–11. The prose refers to information back further, this should also be listed in such a table. It is more important to list information over a long period and skip years (for instance every five years), than to give only recent information. See also WP:RECENTISM.
I've lost count of how many times 'Vietnam Railways' is linked.
"Railway operator Vietnam Railways claims that accidents on railway bridges are rare" First of all, "claims" is a weasel word which should be avoided, as it implies untruth. Secondly, what on earth does "rare" mean here? This is an encyclopedia, so information needs to be specific.
The list should be made into a table (date, location, casualties, description)
It seems as if the list has a recent bias.
My main overall concern with the article is that it looks at accidents as a recent phenomena. Railway accidents have been around as long as railways, and a broader scope is needed.

I fear that this article falls below the GA standards, particularly criterion 3. I will give the nominator a possibility to comment on the above issues before I fail the article outright, but I fear it will need significant work before meeting the criteria. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, article creator here. I didn't know if Mddkpp was planning on responding, so I figured I would. First of all thanks for taking the time to review this GAN, which admittedly came as a surprise (and a bit of an honour too). I've read through your comments and agree with pretty much everything that's said. As it stands, the article is probably around a B on the scale (except for the recentism issues), and as you noted, it needs a lot more work before it's ready for GA. Unfortunately, I'm expecting some of these issues will be too difficult for me to resolve before the week is up, so I think it'd be fair to fail the nomination for now, as you suggested. All the same, your comments have given me good ideas on how to improve the article, so when I do get the time, I'll implement them and perhaps the article can be resubmitted to GAN. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 03:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go along and fail the article. Reflecting over what you have written in the article has given me some ideas for what to write about accidents by country, so the review will come in useful for my part as well. Happy editing, Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]