Talk:2023 Odisha train collision/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 11:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kiwiz1338 (talk · contribs) 10:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state, it's going to be a failure. I'm willing to hold it if Magentic Manifestations you're ready to fix these issues? Kiwiz1338 (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwiz1338 Thanks for taking it up. Based on your comments, I do not find any major issues that cannot be fixed outright. Will address the concerns and revert accordingly. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks Kiwiz1338 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Magentic Manifestations, I'll read over it a few more times and try to get another editor to have a look. There may be more issues to resolve before a possible pass. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwiz1338 I am ok with you taking time going through it if you have concerns or engaging in getting help if not sure. Regarding a second opinion, you would need to request or engage with experienced reviewers specifically asking for help as normally second opinion tags are not addressed, given the huge backlog of GA reviews required in the first place. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been asked to have a look over the shoulder:

There was a mix of date formats in the prose but given that I have a script that fixes those issues, that’s been dealt with.
Some sentences are missing direct articles (a common problem in Indian articles).
Is "neighboring" correct Indian English or is it missing a "u"? Also "criticized ".
Despite the head-on collision – no, that was not a head-on collision.
The lead uses the phrase cancellation of more than 40 trains, while is says at least 48 trains were cancelled. I suggest that the body's prose should be adopted for the lead.

That’s it. I’m happy with the other components of the review. Schwede 66 20:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Schwede66. Ping @Magentic Manifestations just to make sure you have seen it. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 Thanks for the additional comments. My take on these comments below:

Date format issue has been dealt with. No issues here.
Have fixed whatever I can find.
Neighboring and neighbouring are both used in Indian English, though neighbouring is preferred (for obviously British reasons!). Have changed it anyways.
Modified the sentence to remove the head-on part
Yes, it was a miss. Changed it now for consistency.

@Kiwiz1338, These have been addressed as well! Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about "criticized"? Schwede 66 10:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwiz1338 Hi! Request you to complete the review appropriately. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magentic Manifestations I'd add the abbreviation for Odisha Disaster Rapid Action Force next to it in the Emergency response section for consistency. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll update my review comment template tommorow as it's getting a little late for me now, cheers. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwiz1338 Have addressed your last comment as well. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwiz1338 Still awaiting the closure of the review! Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Multiple grammatical errors in the lead and body. Such as suffered from misuse of funds and these could impact the quality of maintenance. There is no grammatical error here and the sentence is correct grammatically with uniformity in tense. "Could" is used as past tense for an event that might or might not happen. Despite the railway authorities said that the accident was not a reflection of the safety issues in the system Tweaked it assisted by other government agencies and 'the' general public. changed Uses of current tense in the body of the article, need to be changed to past tense. See MOS:TENSE. The use of "loco" needs to be replaced with "locomotive" as some readers may not understand the term loco. There was only one such instance. Have linked appropriately. Include the time of the event in the MOS:OPEN added as per the suggestion
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).	In the crash section, first paragraph, the Train no:12841 is unreferenced. It is clearly referenced in #7 Second paragraph in the crash section Three of the derailed coaches from the Coromandel Express careened into the adjacent track and whip-lashed the tail end of the SMVT Bengaluru–Howrah Express, crossing on the down line at the same time. Two unreserved coaches and the brake van of the SMVT Bengaluru–Howrah Express derailed. is very unreferenced Added additional citations to reference the accident description + details of derailed coaches In the victim section, there is no mention of the 33 passengers of Howrah Express in reference Tweaked it Mention of search dog in Emergency response, unreferenced Added
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio detector is fine
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, although I think something missing should be included. You should mention in the victims section of deceased bodies being given and/or claimed to the wrong familes Added
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	As this was the first time I have heard or read about this collision I believe everything was understandable, even without prior context. {{GATable/item\|4\|\|3=At first I thought Political columnist Apoorvanand stated that the accident was used as an opportunity to demonise Muslims. In the aftermath of the train crash, posts by various accounts known for spreading Hindutva and BJP propaganda, started circulating messages blaming Muslims for the accident on different social media platforms and WhatsApp groups. was WP:UNDUE. But looking at the sources, even the Odisha Police made a statement regarding social media posts, so I think this aspect deserves a mention. Speaking of that, you could mention Odisha Police's comment on it. This will add WP:BALANCE I tend to agree on it. But as these kind of statements always end up in discussion on controversial subjects, persisted with it. So adding the police comment, which might lend some counter view to it.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring but just recently undergone a few major edits
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.	Reverse image searching finds no link to any copyrighted source. Tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Great diagram in the crash section I must say. Looking at the diagram having read the crash section, I could picture it. I would, however, move this image down, having it next to the text starting At about 19:00 ~~hrs~~ IST, the Coromandel Express was supposed to pass. As this is what the diagram is trying to show. I would also remove A_scene_from_interior_part_of_inverted_Coromandel_coach_after_the_tragic_accident.jpg Both done.
	7. Overall assessment.	In its current state, it's going to be a failure. I'm willing to hold it if Magentic Manifestations you're ready to fix these issues? @Kiwiz1338, I have addressed your comments. Do let me know in case of further clarifications. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 July 2024 second review

You have fixed the issues raised by Schwede66 and I. Here's the second review following that.

One aspect that could have failed the review the second time was 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. The reverts seemed to be from the same IP though and the last was 3 days ago.

Thank you Magentic Manifestations for your help getting this article to GA. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, as shown by a source spot-check. 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:
· · ·

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.