Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 Chatsworth train collision/archive1

2008 Chatsworth train collision

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for September 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it received a lot of attention when it was on the main page's "In the news" section. I thik it can be brought up to GA status as the pieces of the puzzle fall into place and the content stabilizes. So I'm listing it for peer review to help getting it into shape. Thanks, Dhaluza (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Generally well done and good pictures - here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:LEAD - the lead needs to be expanded to more than one paragraph. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
 * Done. Dhaluza (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To follow the MOS for units and non-breaking spaces, using convert templates may help
 * Done Dhaluza (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since this is a recent accident and more people may die, I think that the date should be included in some places. For example, in the Casulaties section The death toll may rise because many victims remained in critical condition.[17] would benefit from an "As of ..." date
 * Done. Dhaluza (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * American wreck, so use American English - see semi-automated peer review for examples
 * Done. Dhaluza (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it make sense to have a "Legacy" or "Aftermath" section and put the Positive train control, Litigation, and Other railroads sections in it as subsections?
 * Like the 2008 Chatsworth train collision section they are already in? Dhaluza (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dates in refs should not be linked (I know the access date for internet refs is automatically linked, this is the date of the newspaper article, etc.)