Talk:Valley Falls train collision/GA1

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

Nominator: 21:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Infobox and lede

 * 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)

Incident

 * 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)

Aftermath

 * 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)
 * I recommend adding inflation for the half-million cost.
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Overall

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

Great job - passing now! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: