Talk:Eckwersheim derailment/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 05:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's begin. First of all, since most of the sources are in French, I'm going to WP:AGF on sourcing. I don't see why there's any reason to worry. All text (bar part of the lead's summary - as is normal per WP:LEAD) at least has a source, and I see no reason to doubt the factual accuracy and justification of the claims. Sources look strong. I've not checked for copyright violations; I trust you to assure that there's no close-translation of copyrighted text that would amount to a copyright problem.

Secondly, image licensing looks absolutely fine, and are a strong set of images; maybe not quite featured picture level, but that's hardly a requirement.

The text is mostly strong, but could perhaps explain some of the jargon, e.g. "at approximately KP 404.003" - I'd suggest adding a gloss to that phrase; I'd imagine something like "location code KP 404.003" but there's probably a better phrase.

Coverage seems broad enough; I could see naming the victims, but it doesn't seem necessary. I suppose there could be other views on (for example) whether there should have been automatic breaking in the leadup to curves, or whether the investigations are too harsh on the people involved - but that's speculation on things that could exist, not evidence that they do. for a recent subject, this is more than adequate.

Stability is probably the hardest criterion on this article. It's going to need to be kept up-to-date. If you can promise that you will do so, I'm happy to promote.

Current status: Waiting for a response on stability. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I promise there's no close paraphrasing (except the quotation, of course!) and that the content matches the source. KP is explained the first time it appears (in the "Departure" section): "...it should have slowed from 352 to 176 km/h (220 to 110 mph) before reaching Kilometer Point (KP) 403.809,...". It's the metric equivalent to milepost/mile marker...a reference to the specific location along the line. In the "Background" section, there is the following: "Some automated safety systems were disabled to allow the test train to operate beyond normal operating conditions." I see that that could be expounded upon to mention that the automatic braking system was disabled for the testing.


 * When I expanded the article a couple days ago, I used a few search terms in Google with the results limited to the past month and there was nothing new about this incident. I think the main issues that will need updated are: 1) whether or not criminal charges are brought against the driver, 2) whether and how long the opening of the line for commercial service will be delayed, and 3) what procedural changes are made with respect to testing by French authorities. The first two are minor updates that I can check on in a few months (shouldn't be hard to learn with a quick web search). The third may take years to learn the impact, with minor updates from time to time, so I think that shouldn't impact the GA as the present article "addresses the main aspects of the topic"(GA criteria 3a). The footnote to that criteria says in part: "it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics" (emphasis added). I think the fact that the impact of the incident on the testing process will take a while to realize is reasonable enough to consider criteria 3a met. The stability criteria is more about day-to-day changes, ie. edit wars or an ongoing event (for example, the article for an Olympics would not be appropriate to promote during the games). AHeneen (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Passed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)