Talk:Hooghalen train crash

Hooghalen train crash has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 25, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands

Trains: Operations / Passenger trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Operations task force.
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: I'm thrilled to share the exciting news that your article has met all of Wikipedia's guidelines!

After a careful review, I'm happy to say that it's good to go. Great job! Wishing you and your family an absolutely fantastic day ahead!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hooghalen train crash/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kj cheetham (talk · contribs) 13:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review, may be a few days. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
No copyvio issues.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral wording.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Seems stable.
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):
All images are okay, with captions and appropriate licensing. Noted one was marked as "fair use".
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Hi Styyx, here is my review. Starting with a first pass of sections:

Lede - okay

Background - okay, but should CAF be spelled out?

Accident - okay. Not sure if it's worth adding a few sentances summarising the "Alarming" section of the ProRail pages 7-8?

Added a "Immediate response" subsection.

Investigation - okay

Trial - okay

Aftermath - okay

Now checking sources (I'm using Google Translate for Dutch ones):

[1] Okay, but for the sentance NABO's do not have closing barriers and are mostly used in rural areas where there are fewer people, it supports most of it, but not the "rural areas" part as far as I can see?

The source says "Ze komen vaak voor op onverharde wegen en paden" (at unpaved roads and paths), which only exist in rural areas in the Netherlands.

[2] Okay

[5] Okay

[7] Okay

[8] Okay

[10] Okay

[11] Okay

[12] Mostly okay, the article says 150 metres and the source says "approximately 154 meters".

[17] Okay

[19] The article says The railway line was closed for 3 days but the source is only 2 days after the crash, saying more time is needed, but doesn't confirm it was 3 days in the end.

The source says that work was expected to be finished on monday morning (so 3 days), but was delayed to monday evening (also 3 days). This liveblog by ProRail had its last update on monday morning, saying that it would be done by 14:00. I can use both sources if you want.

[22] Okay

[24] Okay

[26] Okay

Optional minor grammar suggestions:

"180 of the passive crossing" to "180 of the passive crossings"

"dark blue and white coloured livery" to "dark blue and white livery"

"9 seconds later" to "Nine seconds later"

"escaped without any" to "escaped unharmed"

"drivers cabin" to "driver's cabin"

"The collision knocked and damaged" to "The collision knocked over and damaged"

"unobstructed view on trains" to "unobstructed view of trains"

"low altitude fog" to "low-altitude fog"

"withstand the force of such impact" to "withstand the force of such an impact"

"railway line was closed for 3 days" to "railway line was closed for three days"

"closed within 9 months" to "closed within nine months"

"according to NS these are not suitable" to "according to NS these are neither suitable"

Overall, looking good! I'll put this on hold to give you chance to respond to the points above.

As an aside, should it also be listed on Template:Railway accidents and incidents in 2020, given it's used on the article? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Kj cheetham. I've made some changes. Styyx (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Styyx All good to me, so I'm going to mark this as pass. Thank you for creating the article! You may want to add https://www.prorail.nl/nieuws/herstelwerk-bij-hooghalen as an additional reference, but not essential. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.