Talk:Valhalla train crash/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mdaniels5757 (talk · contribs) 18:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I intend to review this article. This is my first review, so please bear with me :). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thank you so much for taking up the article!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: And I thank you too. Before you start, I'd like the chance to print it out and do a copy edit (something I normally do before a GA nom, but I've had a lot of GA-nominated articles to work on lately and (believe it or not) not as much time as I'd like to have since my son has been home and he wants to share the desktop too, and I have other things to do online as well. So could you give me a couple of days? It'll make your review that much easier since you (hopefully) won't have to point out all the copy problems for us to fix. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Case, OK, will do. Ping me whenever. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: OK, I'm done ... feel free to start your review. Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

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.	Generally very good, will offer suggestions below.
	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:
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	One question, see below.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

I've mostly completed the review (I just need to finish with the images, which look good so far). Before I sign off, I have a couple of ideas/notes:

1. The crash is the deadliest in Metro-North's history,[1] as well as at the time the deadliest rail accident in the United States since the June 2009 Washington Metro train collision, which killed nine passengers and injured 80.
   • Consider changing to “The crash is the deadliest in Metro-North's history,[1] and at the time was the deadliest rail accident in the United States since the June 2009 Washington Metro train collision, which killed nine passengers and injured 80.”

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

1. At about 5:30 p.m., 14 minutes after sunset on February 3, 2015,[4] a vehicle…
   • Consider changing to “At about 5:30 p.m. on February 3, 2015, 14 minutes after sunset, a vehicle…” to have the date sooner.

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Section: “General criticism of grade crossing safety devices”
   • Does this belong here? If so, explain why in the article.

You know, I had been thinking the same thing. Something about this probably should be in the article, but not in this level of detail. I'm going to see how I can condense it and where to mention it. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I have decided to make it a "further reading". Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

1. “Litigation” section
   • I suppose it is fitting that the litigation section is so long (and still going on), but it feels too long to me – is there any way to consolidate it?

I took out a lot of the quotes and detail that I had added when some of the suits and developments had first been reported. How does it look to you now? Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

1. The appeal over the disclosure of Smalls settlement' has been decided, and Metro-North ordered to provide a copy under seal (i.e. confidentially) to the plantiff's lawyers.
   • Citation: {{Cite court|litigants= Jill Shiner Vandercar, etc., et al. v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, et al. |vol= 178 |reporter= A.D.3d |opinion=931 |court= N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t |date=2019 |url= https://www.leagle.com/decision/innyco20191218424}} → Jill Shiner Vandercar, etc., et al. v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad, et al., 178 A.D.3d 931 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2019).

-- Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Added. Thanks! I hadn't found any news coverage mentioning this! Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• OK! All looks good to me, so I'll pass the article shortly! --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)