This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hatfield rail crash article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Hatfield rail 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 17, 2017, October 17, 2020, and October 17, 2023. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There should be plenty of good reference material at the Railway Safety Standards Board website http://www.rssb.co.uk as well as ramfications of the disaster, Cullen report etc. if someone has enough time to go through all of it. Davetracy 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Yellow Dingo ( talk · contribs) 05:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Taking. I'll post the full review soon. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|cause=Broken rail
- either decapitalise that one to |cause=broken rail
, or capitalise the one in question to |injuries=Over 70
--
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
no issues!
Great article, probably the best I have reviewed. A few minor issues so putting on hold. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333: The only further comments I have are:
{{
convert}}
template to work with that?
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
11:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
— Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
OK I'm now satisfied that this article meets the the criteria so I am passing this GAN. I'll leave that infobox point up to you to do what you like with. Congratulations! — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hatfield rail crash article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Hatfield rail 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on October 17, 2017, October 17, 2020, and October 17, 2023. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There should be plenty of good reference material at the Railway Safety Standards Board website http://www.rssb.co.uk as well as ramfications of the disaster, Cullen report etc. if someone has enough time to go through all of it. Davetracy 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Yellow Dingo ( talk · contribs) 05:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Taking. I'll post the full review soon. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|cause=Broken rail
- either decapitalise that one to |cause=broken rail
, or capitalise the one in question to |injuries=Over 70
--
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
no issues!
Great article, probably the best I have reviewed. A few minor issues so putting on hold. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333: The only further comments I have are:
{{
convert}}
template to work with that?
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
11:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
— Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
OK I'm now satisfied that this article meets the the criteria so I am passing this GAN. I'll leave that infobox point up to you to do what you like with. Congratulations! — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)