Talk:2016 Croydon tram derailment/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seemplez (talk · contribs) 08:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really encountered any issues with this article. It has reliable sources, detailed diagrams and perfect grammar. A minor issue is that you could shorten Sandilands tram stop to Sandilands but that is not enough to fail.

Review reopened

Seemplez, you are very new to Wikipedia, and it's unheard of to have an editor with fewer than several hundred edits reviewing a GAN, much less on with only twenty. I would like to suggest that you gain a few months of experience with editing articles and assessing them before you start working in the GA space.

In terms of this article, I immediately noticed the failure to cite a quote in the Investigations section, Rail Accident Investigation Branch, second paragraph. There are also other places where citations would be expected, such as the 20 mph speed limit.

Another issue is with the old information where there hasn't been an update that would be expected for a GA. In a couple of other Investigations subsections, there is talk about a report expected in 2018 from that particular entity. We're already over halfway through 2019; either the article is missing the reports and needs to add information about what they contained, or note that there has been a delay—some additional research will be needed in any event.

I have reopened the review, and added a "second opinion" tag to it; this needs to be checked by an experienced reviewer who knows what to look for. Given the amount of time the review was given, I wonder whether the article contents were actually checked against the sources, including for close paraphrasing. There is one from a BBC source, "Trams are not fitted with any safety protection systems that apply the brakes automatically if they are going too fast", that is used (with a single added word) in the "Office of Rail and Road" subsection; in this case, sourcing is not enough, and either a far-less-close paraphrase is needed or the phrase should be quoted.BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, which reference number are we discussing here please? Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots, it's ref 9 for the close paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset thanks, i will promptly leave and/or get an admin to permablock as i realised i am a coi under WP:COI as i live in croydon, around the selhst ward. one of my friends was injured in the incident. on the issue of me being unexperienced, in WP:GAR it clearly states that any registered editor can review an article so your point is redundant under WP policies. Seemplez | Chat —Preceding undated comment added 07:33, 19 July 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ORR, their page on the derailment contains a list of their publications and correspondence on the matter. There is nothing that stands out as a formal update on their investigation and I haven't read all the documents, but the Letter from Ian Prosser - 4 December 2018 strongly implies that their investigation was still ongoing at that date. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Review

A second opinion was asked for, so here are my comments.

1. Is it well written?

Having read the article, I can find no errors in grammar or punctuation. The article also appears to comply with all regulations in the Manual of Style.

One comment, the article mentions the speed restriction of 12 mph 3 times, in the lead, the accident, and the report. I don't think that you need to say it three times. In the report section, I would recommend that the sentence far exceeding the speed restriction of 20 kilometres per hour (12 mph) is changed to "far exceeding the speed restriction", removing the numbers. (I am assuming that the reader already knows what the restriction is from reading the lead).

Changed as suggested. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it verifiable, with no original research?

This one I have a small problem with. As mentioned by BlueMoonset, in the Accident paragraph there is no citation for the speed restriction where there should be.

Reference added. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the paragraph on "Rail Accident Investigation", there is no citation for the sentence The On Tram Data Recorder (OTDR) indicated that some braking had occurred within this distance but only sufficient to reduce the tram's speed from 80 kmph (50 mph) to 70 kmph (43.5 mph). I would like to assume that this is from the report, but it is not very clear.

Reference added, although the text did indicate where the info came from (interim report). Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked for copyright, and found no violations.

3. Is it neutral?

Article appears to be neutral in its detailing of the incident, giving due weight to all necessary points.

4. Is it stable?

This article has shown few large changes in the last few months, a good sign of stability. Looking at the edit history, I also don't see any edit wars or content disputes.

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

I hope this helps. If you have questions or comments, or would like me to close this, please ping me and I will answer them. Thanks. Mgasparin (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mgasparin: - I've fixed the issues raised above. Mjroots (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Having reviewed your additions, I am satisfied with article and willing to pass it as a GA. Good job! Mgasparin (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]