Talk:1996 Maryland train collision

Is this really necessary?

I'm wondering if there's really a need for this article. The MARC train article has more details than this. There's not much more to say about the incident. —Al E.^(talk) 10:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw my concern. Good job adding content and fleshing out the article. —Al E.^(talk) 13:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Memorial

There's a couple of photos of the memorial of the accident available. They might be worth adding to the article.

—Al E.^(talk) 15:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I was bold and added them. —Al E.^(talk) 17:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1996 Silver Spring, Maryland, train collision/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) 00:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be taking on this review. I should have some feedback for you very soon, but otherwise please allow several days. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I'll need HighBeam access to verify many of the sources. I have applied at Wikipedia:HighBeam and stated it is specifically needed for this review. Judging by the page history the requests are responded to fairly quickly, so hopefully this won't take too long. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your taking the review on. For my part I'll see if I can reference some of these details via Newspapers.com, which can be verified without an account. I didn't have that access when I rewrote the article. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

HighBeam access granted, so I will now begin the review. Thanks for your patience! — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Concerns

Accident

• What is meant by "Eastern (local) time" as opposed to "Eastern Standard Time" or simply EST?

Investigation

• multiple distractions to operate MARC train 286... Here the inline citation uses roman numerals to indicate the page number, unlike the rest of the references.
• I see why bullets may be used here, as there were a clear three changes recommended by the NTSB. However I think it may still better be presented in prose. What are your thoughts?

References

• I had a thought... what if we linked to Wikipedia:HighBeam where it reads (subscription required) in the references? That way we can inform the reader they are welcome to apply for free access through The Wikipedia Library. To be honest, I only discovered the resource by taking a wild guess and typing in WP:HIGHBEAM in the search bar and hitting enter.

Overall I think this article is very well-written. We should be able to address the above concerns quite easily, so I'm putting the article on hold for now. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think I meant to indicate that Eastern time was the local time, but I suppose that's self-evident. I've taken it out. The NTSB report uses roman numerals for the preface and Executive Summary, which was what was cited there. My intention with the bullets is to break up the prose paragraphs and draw the readers' attention to those points. It could be rendered as prose but I think the ideas would disappear into the section. The citation format for HighBeam is the recommended format so I'm loath to change it. I suspect the justification is that Wikipedia is written for its readers, and that we should avoid internal self-references wherever possible. Mackensen (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for writing such a good article! It was difficult to find things to complain about :) Your clarification pretty much tells me everything I need. List versus prose has it exceptions, and I think this is one of them. The HighBeam linkage makes sense I guess... I hate as the reader I can't verify the fact without paying for access, but as you say, the common reader would not be granted free access anyway. We should not disregard a source as acceptable just because it is not immediately accessible to the reader.

Y Again, excellent work. I hereby am passing this nomination. Congratulations! — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction in death toll?

The opening paragraph says

"The collision killed three crew and eleven passengers on the MARC train;"

but the final paragraph in the "Accident" section says

"All three crew members aboard the MARC train were killed along with eight passengers."

Eight passengers plus three crew makes 11 people. Is that where the error is coming in? For what it's worth, the memorial stone lists eight names. —Al E.^(talk) 14:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Eight is the correct number, and I've updated it. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this noteworthy

Is it worth noting that the design of the Amtrak F40PH caused most of the deaths in this crash, as that is what caused the fire, correct? From what I've read, had the fuel tank been protected like it was on the GE Genesis right behind it, there would not have been a massive fire after the impact. Feel free to agree, disagree, etc. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 19:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the recommendations you can see that one of them was directed at GE to improve fuel tank safety (the same was directed at EMD). I would read this to mean that they did not conclude that the Genesis unit's tank was enough better to have avoided a fire. In any case more blame was laid upon the fact that people just couldn't get out of the cab car. Mangoe (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You do have a good point. The reality is at least eight of the people could've been saved if they had actually been able to open some of the doors and/or smash the windows on the train so that they could actually escape. It says that three people's injuries from the impact could've caused their deaths alone, but I'm wondering if at least one of those three people could've survived if they had been treated quickly enough and the fact that they couldn't be saved. Then again, I feel like this accident is full of "what if" questions. With regards to the fuel tank thing, the GE Genesis is a longer locomotive and the fuel tank was near the center, whereas the F40PH had it's fuel tank right up front and entirely unprotected. Now, I agree that the Genesis may not have necessarily not caused a fire if it had been the one to take the impact, but perhaps the severity of the fire could've been a lot less. My interpretation of the NTSB's fuel tank recommendation is that they were telling EMD and GE to either rebuild or retire any locomotives with dangerous designs that make their fuel tanks vulnerable to rupturing (and thus, very prone to causing a fire upon impact). Then again, as I said, there are so many what if questions that one could ask about the accident. In essence, the sense that I get is that this was a near worst-case scenario accident. Not much would've made this a more horrifying and deadly accident then it already had been. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 13:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)