Talk:Valley Falls train collision

This review is transcluded from Talk:Valley Falls train collision/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 21:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, very close to GA. Just a few minor corrections and some suggestions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lede[edit]

• Link daguerreotype in the caption
• Add alt text for images
• Comma in the second sentence should be a semicolon.
• I'd add a sentence about what happened in the collision (the trains involved, etc) to the first paragraph.

  All of these items done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incident[edit]

• Do any of the sources mention how many cars were on the southbound train?

  Eight cars. Mentioned in the prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

• I would recommend left-aligning these images. Having them with the text (rather than pushed below the infobox) is more important than any potential sandwiching.

  Fair enough, done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend adding {{inflation}} for the half-million cost.

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Any information on when the double tracking was completed?

  The last section between Providence and Worcester was completed in 1885, though the work did begin shortly after the accident. I can't say when the section in question was double-tracked, though we would logically assume it would be one of the first locations to be addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm doubtful of the claim that the P&W had the first electronic signal system in the US. The Fitchburg Cutoff had track circuits installed in 1876, and several other lines shortly thereafter. Perhaps this was the first of a specific signal system type - are there any further details in the source?

  I'm in the middle of a move at the moment (going back to Connecticut) and I don't have the book in question with me right now. For the time being I'm just going to remove the "first" claim from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

• Source 6 is weirdly formatted, and the publisher shouldn't just be the website url.

  I just removed it entirely. It was present from before I expanded the article, and the Train Wrecks book covers everything in that paragraph. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Source 8 has an inconsistent date format.

  Addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources 7 and 9 are duplicates and should be merged with {{rp}} for pagination

  Given we are only talking about 3 pages in the book, I just merged the references entirely and didn't worry about reference pages. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Add an external links section for the commonscat link

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a GA issue, but looks like the link to this article in the bottom navbox should be corrected.

  Good catch, I renamed the article and didn't remember the navbox. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: