Talk:United States: Two killed, more than a hundred injured in Amtrak train collision in South Carolina

Review of revision 4380622 [Not ready]

Revision 4380622 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Argh; see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Rapidly developing stories can be difficult for us, depending (at least in part) on how promptly one of our reviewers is able to review the article. Likely there would have been no problem if any of us had been able to review this last night. However, this morning there are new developments regarding what Amtrak has to say about the cause of the collision; and a reader, reading a newly published article about it today, would have a reasonable expectation that the new developments would be mentioned. This might not require a big addition to the article, but the addition seems an important one. So imo in its current form the article falls short of freshness. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4380622 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Argh; see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Rapidly developing stories can be difficult for us, depending (at least in part) on how promptly one of our reviewers is able to review the article. Likely there would have been no problem if any of us had been able to review this last night. However, this morning there are new developments regarding what Amtrak has to say about the cause of the collision; and a reader, reading a newly published article about it today, would have a reasonable expectation that the new developments would be mentioned. This might not require a big addition to the article, but the addition seems an important one. So imo in its current form the article falls short of freshness. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 4380851 [Not ready]

Revision 4380851 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Two whole paragraphs here (now paragraphs 4 and 5, starting with "Harrison Cahill" and with "Passenger Derek Pettaway"), excepting the last sentence of the first of those paragraphs (about the 5,000 gallons of fuel), I was unable to verify. Either a source is missing, or a source got "updated" in a way that erased some information. (Changes of title indicate a couple of these articles got updated.) If I cut the unverified material I'd be deleting about a quarter or more of the article; and I've already used up a lot of reviewer's purview in addressing the lede; so I don't feel I can do that. I'm therefore turning the problem over to the reporter to determine how to handle: remove unverified material, providing additional sourcing, or some combination of changes and added sourcing. If not for that major verification glitch, I would have been in a position to publish (all other text has been checked on all review criteria). Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4380851 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Two whole paragraphs here (now paragraphs 4 and 5, starting with "Harrison Cahill" and with "Passenger Derek Pettaway"), excepting the last sentence of the first of those paragraphs (about the 5,000 gallons of fuel), I was unable to verify. Either a source is missing, or a source got "updated" in a way that erased some information. (Changes of title indicate a couple of these articles got updated.) If I cut the unverified material I'd be deleting about a quarter or more of the article; and I've already used up a lot of reviewer's purview in addressing the lede; so I don't feel I can do that. I'm therefore turning the problem over to the reporter to determine how to handle: remove unverified material, providing additional sourcing, or some combination of changes and added sourcing. If not for that major verification glitch, I would have been in a position to publish (all other text has been checked on all review criteria). Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Damn. That was why I didn't use CNN, it was obviously changing. Will start hunting. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I've found and added a newspaper source that preserves the earlier version of one of the Reuters articles, covering both those blocks of information. I also saw preserved Amtrak saying CSX owned the track, which you changed to "operate" as unverifiable; will now chase that down and place here. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Amtrak's statement was: ""CSX owns and controls the Columbia Subdivision where the accident occurred ... CSX maintains all of the tracks and signal systems. CSX controls the dispatching of all trains, including directing the signal systems which control the access to sidings and yards." as cited on Fox News on the 4th. But Reuters has revised that statement to "operate" in all the articles Google is finding for me where "owns and operates" previously occurred; so that would seem to have been a correction. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4380891 [Passed]

Revision 4380891 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Didn't find Doctor Shelton, nor some of the information attributed to him, and some of what I did find was somewhat altered. Didn't find some of Pettaway's account, and what I did find was attributed to CNN rather than CBS. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4380891 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Didn't find Doctor Shelton, nor some of the information attributed to him, and some of what I did find was somewhat altered. Didn't find some of Pettaway's account, and what I did find was attributed to CNN rather than CBS. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Sigh. Thanks for passing it all the same. What a tangle. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)