Talk:2008 Chatsworth train collision/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I will be preforming the review of this article to see if it meets the good article criteria. This process may take up to seven days. if you have any questions during the review process, for example about any edits I may make, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Million_Moments (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

GA On Hold
This article has been placed on hold, as a few changes and clarifications need to be made before it can pass GA: -


 * fact tags have been placed where the source of the information is not clear, or a reference needs to be placed directly after a quote.
 * I believe these have all been addressed. Dhaluza (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The railway charecteristics and location subsections would work better if intergrated into one subsection instead of two.


 * In it's present form, the timeline is not particulary useful and should be intergrated as prose into the collision section. This is because the timeline mentions things not yet discussed in detail in the article which could be confusing for the reader.
 * All new material needs to introduced at some point throughout the article (by definition). Introducing it in a chronology is a perfectly valid way of organizing the material, and this is not necessarily confusing (or a more confusing way of introducing new items). I disagree that the timeline would be better integrated as prose--a timeline is a good example of where a table is useful. Timelines are also a critical element of accident reconstructions. I have moved the timeline to a sepatate section to avoid breaking the flow of the Collision section. Dhaluza (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The image of the text message does not meet WP:NFC guidelines as it does not significantly improve the readers understanding on the subject, and should thus be removed.


 * The responce of the other railways section is quite long for something not overly related to the article. It should be cut down, and perhaps merged into the Positive train control section.
 * I've expanded the introductory sentence to explicitly state the relevance of this material. This section discusses alternatives to PTC, so it is does not lend itself to merging as you suggest. Dhaluza (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But my point is this article is not about alternatives to PTC, it is abput a railway crash. Million_Moments (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This article will be watched for seven days, and if no improvement is made in that time maybe failed without warning. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to leave messages and comments here which I will respond to as quickly as possible. Good luck! Million_Moments (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice that apart from the refs no further work has been done on this article. Is there nobody actively working on it? Million_Moments (talk) 09:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been busy @ work. I'll try to respond to the comments this weekend. Dhaluza (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed the changes that had been made to this article, they did not appear in my watchlist. I will go over the article very soon and re-assess it. Million_Moments (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are still sections of my review that have not been addressed. I am not willing to pass the article with the non-free image in it, but when I removed this image it was placed back. Also the railway charecteristics and location subsections have not yet been mereged. There is also still a fact. If there is a problem addressing these issues please leave comments here. Million_Moments (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please respond to my comments or I will have to fail the article. I will give you 48 hours since there seems to be very little movement. Million_Moments (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Fail
Unfortunatly this article has failed GA due to lack of responce whilst the article has been on hold. Comments above still stand and when have been addressed the article can be renominated. If you feel this review is in error the article can be listed at WP:GAR. Thanks for all your work so far and good luck! Million_Moments (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)