GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden ( talk · contribs) 05:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, let's begin. First of all, since most of the sources are in French, I'm going to
WP:AGF on sourcing. I don't see why there's any reason to worry. All text (bar part of the lead's summary - as is normal per
WP:LEAD) at least has a source, and I see no reason to doubt the factual accuracy and justification of the claims. Sources look strong. I've not checked for copyright violations; I trust you to assure that there's no close-translation of copyrighted text that would amount to a copyright problem.
Secondly, image licensing looks absolutely fine, and are a strong set of images; maybe not quite featured picture level, but that's hardly a requirement.
The text is mostly strong, but could perhaps explain some of the jargon, e.g. "at approximately KP 404.003" - I'd suggest adding a gloss to that phrase; I'd imagine something like "location code KP 404.003" but there's probably a better phrase.
Coverage seems broad enough; I could see naming the victims, but it doesn't seem necessary. I suppose there could be other views on (for example) whether there should have been automatic breaking in the leadup to curves, or whether the investigations are too harsh on the people involved - but that's speculation on things that could exist, not evidence that they do. for a recent subject, this is more than adequate.
Stability is probably the hardest criterion on this article. It's going to need to be kept up-to-date. If you can promise that you will do so, I'm happy to promote.
Current status: Waiting for a response on stability. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 05:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden ( talk · contribs) 05:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, let's begin. First of all, since most of the sources are in French, I'm going to
WP:AGF on sourcing. I don't see why there's any reason to worry. All text (bar part of the lead's summary - as is normal per
WP:LEAD) at least has a source, and I see no reason to doubt the factual accuracy and justification of the claims. Sources look strong. I've not checked for copyright violations; I trust you to assure that there's no close-translation of copyrighted text that would amount to a copyright problem.
Secondly, image licensing looks absolutely fine, and are a strong set of images; maybe not quite featured picture level, but that's hardly a requirement.
The text is mostly strong, but could perhaps explain some of the jargon, e.g. "at approximately KP 404.003" - I'd suggest adding a gloss to that phrase; I'd imagine something like "location code KP 404.003" but there's probably a better phrase.
Coverage seems broad enough; I could see naming the victims, but it doesn't seem necessary. I suppose there could be other views on (for example) whether there should have been automatic breaking in the leadup to curves, or whether the investigations are too harsh on the people involved - but that's speculation on things that could exist, not evidence that they do. for a recent subject, this is more than adequate.
Stability is probably the hardest criterion on this article. It's going to need to be kept up-to-date. If you can promise that you will do so, I'm happy to promote.
Current status: Waiting for a response on stability. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 05:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)