Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Valhalla train crash/archive1

Valhalla train crash

Featured article candidates/Valhalla train crash/archive1

Nominator(s): Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the deadliest train crash in the 40-year history of New York's Metro-North Railroad. Five people on a Harlem Line train were killed during a winter evening rush hour in suburban Westchester County when a driver stopped her SUV on the tracks at a grade crossing near one of the largest cemeteries in the New York area. Almost ten years, an NTSB investigation and a lawsuit later, we still don't know why because she was killed as well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Overall in very fine shape, though there are 71 instances of the word 'accident' throughout while there are only a handful of uses of that word in RS. Should be switched to better words throughout (crash, fire, collision, incident, etc). I've been challenged in the aviation space for suggesting the same and have been told that MOS overrules RS, but I think this shouldn't be so contentious for this article Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we had this discussion last year, and then its sequel. All I can say is that, for the reasons I gave in the first discussion, I feel you, and that should consensus come around on this I would be the first to make that change. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TAOT

I will be reviewing this over the coming days. I will start at the lead and go in the order of the article's sections.

Lead and infobox

On the evening of February 3, 2015, a commuter train on Metro-North Railroad's Harlem Line struck a passenger car at a grade crossing on Commerce Street near Valhalla, New York, United States, between the Valhalla and Mount Pleasant stations, killing six people and injuring 15 others, seven very seriously. This is 307 characters long; I recommend splitting it into two sentences.

I took the middle part about which two stations the crash was between out (more detail than the lede needs to have) and split the section about the fatalities and injuries into a separate sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the deadliest crash in Metro-North's history, and at the time the deadliest rail accident in the United States "Is" and "and at the time" do not go together, because "at the time" refers to a past event but "is" refers to something in the present.

Done

how the passengers were killed Suggest "how the train passengers were killed" since a car can also have passengers.

Done

In 2024, a jury hearing one found the railroad and Brody liable for the accident. What is the meaning of "one" here? Hearing one what?

Added the words "of the suits".

For the infobox, suggest specifying that one train car and the automobile were destroyed, and the other train car damaged. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed.

This is minor, but the crossing signage should really be "the crossing signals" since this is a crossing with active warning devices, not just crossbucks.

Done.

Suggesting linking NTSB in the infobox photo caption.

Done.

I will continue this review soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded above. I will have limited ability to respond to comments here early this week because I am working at the polls on Tuesday (aaaallll day here in NY) Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Bombardier M7A electric multiple units is a MOS:SOB.

Fixed, although it made the sentence a little wordier.

Suggest linking M7A in the image caption.

Did that too.

I'm curious about the use of "boom barrier", as I'm pretty sure the standard terminology in the U.S. is crossing gate. I do see that crossing gate is also linked in the following section, though both links go to the same page.

I don't remember writing this ... might have been someone else shortly after the article was started. I have changed it to crossing gates since the cited Times article uses that term.

Probably worth mentioning the M7As are in pairs, as otherwise the mentions of 8 cars and 4 M7As seem contradictory.

Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are all these links and mentions of the counties locations are in really needed? Imho they are excessive and make the sentences too long.

I trimmed them. Writing both this and December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment drew a lot on my experiences visiting various Metro-North stations with my son when he was younger so he could take pictures and video, and the understanding of Metro-North's operations I gained. So maybe I was still thinking that way at the time, but it's not that time anymore.

It might be best to reorder the second and third paragraphs, as you switch topics to the train leaving GCT and then go back to the previous topic in the next paragraph.

Saw your point. Reads better now.

I really think making a turn onto Lakeview Avenue from the northbound parkway is too much detail for this article. What's relevant is that the parkway was closed, I don't think this adds anything to understanding the topic.

Tightened that a bit.

Lakeview Avenue crossed the two tracks using a grade crossing should be "crossed the two tracks at a grade crossing". Also, grade crossing can be linked.

I made it "crossed the tracks at grade" and linked the whole phrase.

After a crash at the Commerce Street crossing in 1984 that had killed the driver of the van involved remove "had".

Done.

The sentences discussing Commerce Street should be consistent in tense, you use both present and past tense here.

I changed that "next crossing was" to "is"; obviously it's still there. Daniel Case (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crash

Why is there a citation after the word "Alan"?

I haved moved it to the end of the sentence. I suppose I might have left it there for some reason, perhaps temporarily, when I converted the NTSB report ref to {{sfn}}. Or there could have more near the beginning of the sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not liking the organization of the first paragraph. You start with the driver going up Commerce Street, then backtrack to her being on the Taconic and having to divert due to the crash. Consider reworking this paragraph to put events in order.

This took more work than anything else so far that's come up in this FAC. But that's why we have them.

The same issue is apparent in the next paragraph, where the phone call is said to have taken place before the driver left the parkway at all.

I wound up rewriting those three grafs so everything's more in order. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it original research to say the claim of hearing a bell was wrong and sourcing it to the inspection report, a primary document? There's also nothing in the cited source to support in New York bells are only required for pedestrian crossings. Additionally, trains are often equipped with bells as a warning device. My advice here would be to simply say an inspection after the accident found the crossing was not equipped with a bell.

The NTSB report is clearer that there wasn't a bell at the crossing, and has a footnote explaining that this is not required. I have sourced that and limited the endnote wording to just what the sources say. (All the same, I don't know if the train bells would have been as audible as any crossing bells would have been had there been any).

Hit the air brakes should be "applied the emergency brakes" as specified in the NTSB report.

Changed.

Passengers in the first car recalled being thrown from their seats on impact as the fire started There hasn't been any mention of a fire until this point, so it should be "a fire".

Changed.

until a manual override was sent Was this from dispatch at Grand Central? Can you specify who did the override?

The NTSB credits this to the office of Metro-North's power director. Absent another source saying that office is at Grand Central (which, of course, I wouldn't be surprised if it was), we can't say anything more than that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 23-24 of the NTSB report say the power director's office is in Grand Central Terminal. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's on page 23. I have added it and appropriately amended the footnote. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link the first mention of third rail.

Done. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victims

Equity analyst is another MOS:SOB issue, since the reader would expect an article at equity analyst.

Changed to that. Daniel Case (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will pick up from the end of the victims section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Can we have inflation templates for cost numbers? I've been victim to those requests many times at FAC, and now I get to inflict them on you (joking).
This is nitpicky, but I've never seen anyone use the spelling "high-rail" in the U.S., it's usually hi-rail or hirail.
The interim pastor at Nadol's Church of St. Mary the Virgin, noted that communities like Chappaqua depend on commuter rail for economic and cultural reasons Is that comma necessary? It seems out of place to me but maybe there's some MOS thingy that says I'm wrong.

Investigation

Any chance we can say a bit more about the NTSB team? How many members, and how long did they ultimately stay?
If you can find room, it might be a good idea to show a photo of the contact shoe with the third rail to illustrate how it works. A photo showing how the third rails used by the MTA often have a cover might also be a good addition.
reduce the possibility of inadvertent contact with the high-voltage rail Suggest making it clearer you are referring to contact of people (or wildlife or anything that isn't a train contact shoe) with the third rail, obviously you would want the contact shoe to make contact with the third rail. I understand what you're saying here, but it is kind of confusing when it comes immediately after the explanation that the under-running is meant to prevent ice from building up (and presumably causing problems for the contact shoes).
When listing the safety features in the second to last paragraph, you did not include the flashing lights though my understanding is they also worked correctly.

Reports and conclusions

It's the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, not Manual of. Easy mistake to make, I work with the MUTCD on a daily basis at my day job and if you told me it was "Manual of" I'd probably believe you. Probably why we all just call it the MUTCD at work.
I looked through my copy of Train Wrecks by Robert C. Reed, and it does agree that collisions involving the rail coming through the bottom of a train car are very rare and have been since steel rails were widely adopted, but they were unfortunately a common occurrence when strap rail was used in the 1800s. He says the terminology for such an event in a train accident is a "snakehead". Not sure this means any changes are needed to the article but I figured you'd find it interesting.
the third rails were designed to break up in accidents and fail to the side Should this be "fall"?
You write But in this case, with only two exceptions, the third rail's 6-foot (2 m) sections had largely remained joined in larger sections averaging 39 feet (12 m) in length, weighing a ton (800 kg) each, as they accumulated in the first and second cars but the NTSB report says "Of the 11 sections of third rail recovered, five were about 39 feet in length" which seems to me to suggest something different.

Post-accident official responses

The second sentence here is very long, I suggest splitting it into two.
Can the section about proposed closing be updated? It doesn't clearly indicate if the crossings were closed or not.
Why is Operation Lifesaver abbreviated as OLI (as opposed to OL)? This is not done in the NTSB report.

Litigation

Most were from passengers injured or killed Suggest adding something along the lines of "or their surviving relatives".

Other

There are two periods after the retrieval date for the external link, pretty sure there should only be one.
That's about it for me. I'll do one more readthrough once you've responded to these comments and then I expect to be in support of promotion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

Very solid prose throughout. I took the liberty of fixing a few citation orders.

In the paragraph beginning The call was dropped, you should say "Brody" instead of "she" for the first mention of her.

I went further. I changed it to "Alan's" per MOS:SAMESURNAME. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This also happens a couple times in the Driver's behavior.

Again per MOS:SAMESURNAME, I used "Allan" and "Ellen". Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to MOS:EMPHASIS, use em tags when italicizing for emphasis, like when you emphasize any under "Design of third rails".

Done. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any other problems. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me - Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EG

I will leave some comments later. I'm not sure if I can formally !vote on the nomination since I seem to have the second-most edits to this article, but I guess I'll ask the FAC coords when we reach that point. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will just state for the record that I have no objections to you taking part. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

Para 2: "the first car" - More specifically, the first train car (since "car" can be misconstrued here for "private vehicle").

I went with "front car".

Para 3: "Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) focused on two issues in the accident: how the train passengers were killed, since that rarely occurs in grade crossing collisions; and why Brody went forward into the train's path." - I get why you used the semicolon; it may appear in lists with three or more items, where at least one item has a comma. However, it usually isn't used in lists with only two items. This would otherwise imply "and why Brody went forward into the train's path" is a standalone sentence, which it isn't. I suggest adding dashes, e.g. "how the train passengers were killed—since that rarely occurs in grade crossing collisions—and why Brody went forward into the train's path."
Para 3: "town of Mount Pleasant, which maintains Commerce Street, Westchester County, the railroad, and the engineer" - Conversely, you can add semicolons here, e.g. "town of Mount Pleasant, which maintains Commerce Street; Westchester County; the railroad; and the engineer". This is because "which maintains Commerce Street" isn't a party to a lawsuit, but rather clarifying the town of Mount Pleasant's involvement in the lawsuit.

All done. Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

Para 1: "At about 5:30 p.m. on February 3, 2015, 14 minutes after sunset" - I'd change to "...fourteen minutes after sunset" or reword this to put more distance between "2015" and "14" per MOS:NUMNOTES, which advises to "avoid awkward juxtapositions" such as this one.
Para 1: "both lanes of the southbound Taconic and one northbound lane" - How about "both southbound lanes and one northbound lane of the Taconic"?
Para 2: " Bombardier M7A electric multiple units" - This is a pretty severe case of WP:SEAOFBLUE; there are three links in a row without any indicator that these links are separate. I would either put distance between these links (e.g. four M7A electric multiple units made by Bombardier) or remove two of them. Actually I see TAOT has mentioned this above.
Para 3: "Lakeview Avenue crossed the two tracks using a grade crossing" - The wording "crossed...using a grade crossing" seems slightly repetitive. Is there a way to reword this?

I have addressed the first two; the latter were also pointed out by TAOT and I addressed them in response to his comments. And I want to thank you for refocusing my attention on this section, since looking at it while doing this brought to my attention not only a couple of minor copy errors but some awkwardness in the section as a whole (i.e., we mentioned Lakeview crossing "the tracks" well before we mentioned the train, and since we had said nothing about the line running parallel alongside the Taconic at that point a reader who, say, hasn't had the occasion in the years since the crash to go down to the site and walk around and take photographs, will have absolutely no understanding of this. Or, now, would have. Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More tomorrow, probably. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

I reviewed this at PR I probably won't do another full review, but I'm happy to report that most of the issues I raised at that time, particularly those about going into excessive detail, have been addressed. I mentioned at PR my concern that an overwhelming number of the sources were from local news media immediately after the crash. I see that's still largely true. On the other hand for an article like this, that may simply be unavoidable; if those are the sources that exist, that's what we've got to use. I took the liberty of uploading a new version of the rail image, with some exposure adjustments which bring out the detail better.