The lead paragraph should be adjusted. Now it reads:
The Wootton Bassett SPAD incident refers to an incident in the United Kingdom where a steam-hauled charter train passed a signal at danger (SPAD) and subsequently came to a stand across a high speed mainline junction. Another train, that had right of way, had passed through the junction 44 seconds earlier and no collision occurred. The incident occurred near Wootton Bassett Junction, in Wiltshire on 7 March 2015.
The Wootton Bassett SPAD incident occurred on 7 March 2015 when a steam-hauled charter train in the United Kingdom passed a signal at danger and subsequently stopped, blocking a high speed mainline track.
Per Criteria 2b the dead link ref will have to either use wayback machine linkage or will need to be completely replaced for the article to pass a GA Review.
Shearonink (
talk)
23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I am finding the through-line of this subject hard to follow, but am not sure if this is because of my unfamiliarity with the subject or not. Will do some more readthroughs to see if I can explain my thoughts on this a little more clearly.
Shearonink (
talk)
01:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Further thoughts - The article shifts from the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD to the 2015 Sherwood Forester incident to the 2014 previous (lineside fire) incident. As a reader I find the timeline confusing - is this an article about the particular SPAD incident or about WCRC's various operating issues and legal difficulties? I understand wanting to provide background about WCRC's operations but am thinking the content about its other problems could be edited down somewhat.
Shearonink (
talk)
23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Firstly, thank you for the review and for explaining what you found confusing re the timeline. Have had a little think about this and have made changes.
I moved the "45231 Sherwood Forester incident and further prohibition" section below the "Fallout" and above the Prosecution section. It has been retitled "Subsequent incident and further ban". I'm not in favour of having the previous incident section above the main incident as I feel that by doing so would take the focus away from the main incident.
The article is about the incident, but it is also about the consequences of the incident (ban, lifting, further ban, prosecution). This is why the background info is also needed (Company attitude, previous incidents - Bell Busk was not the only incident, but it was the most significant and serves with the main incident to illustrate the underlying causes well).
Mjroots (
talk)
07:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Points taken. I agree the other incidents are important to keep in the article, I was just thinking for a reader (particularly one who is unfamiliar with the subject) that the previous order of paragraphs was slightly confusing to the timeline.
Shearonink (
talk)
14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
The lead paragraph should be adjusted. Now it reads:
The Wootton Bassett SPAD incident refers to an incident in the United Kingdom where a steam-hauled charter train passed a signal at danger (SPAD) and subsequently came to a stand across a high speed mainline junction. Another train, that had right of way, had passed through the junction 44 seconds earlier and no collision occurred. The incident occurred near Wootton Bassett Junction, in Wiltshire on 7 March 2015.
The Wootton Bassett SPAD incident occurred on 7 March 2015 when a steam-hauled charter train in the United Kingdom passed a signal at danger and subsequently stopped, blocking a high speed mainline track.
Per Criteria 2b the dead link ref will have to either use wayback machine linkage or will need to be completely replaced for the article to pass a GA Review.
Shearonink (
talk)
23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I am finding the through-line of this subject hard to follow, but am not sure if this is because of my unfamiliarity with the subject or not. Will do some more readthroughs to see if I can explain my thoughts on this a little more clearly.
Shearonink (
talk)
01:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Further thoughts - The article shifts from the 2015 Wootton Bassett SPAD to the 2015 Sherwood Forester incident to the 2014 previous (lineside fire) incident. As a reader I find the timeline confusing - is this an article about the particular SPAD incident or about WCRC's various operating issues and legal difficulties? I understand wanting to provide background about WCRC's operations but am thinking the content about its other problems could be edited down somewhat.
Shearonink (
talk)
23:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Firstly, thank you for the review and for explaining what you found confusing re the timeline. Have had a little think about this and have made changes.
I moved the "45231 Sherwood Forester incident and further prohibition" section below the "Fallout" and above the Prosecution section. It has been retitled "Subsequent incident and further ban". I'm not in favour of having the previous incident section above the main incident as I feel that by doing so would take the focus away from the main incident.
The article is about the incident, but it is also about the consequences of the incident (ban, lifting, further ban, prosecution). This is why the background info is also needed (Company attitude, previous incidents - Bell Busk was not the only incident, but it was the most significant and serves with the main incident to illustrate the underlying causes well).
Mjroots (
talk)
07:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Points taken. I agree the other incidents are important to keep in the article, I was just thinking for a reader (particularly one who is unfamiliar with the subject) that the previous order of paragraphs was slightly confusing to the timeline.
Shearonink (
talk)
14:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)reply