Talk:2023 Jetline roller coaster accident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Article milestones, Date ...
Good article2023 Jetline roller coaster accident 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 24, 2026Good article nomineeNot listed
May 22, 2026Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 16, 2026.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in the 2023 Jetline roller coaster accident the lap bars bent so far out of position that three riders were ejected?
Current status: Good article
Close

Page title

I didn't know that headers and and the title use sentence case. Is there any way that I can change the page title to sentence case? AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, @AllegedlyAPhotographer - you should be able to WP:MOVE this page to correct the capitalization. If the move button doesn’t work, shoot me a ping and I’d be happy to do it for you (although if the article is accepted, the reviewer will likely move it to the correct title anyway). Cheers. GoldRomean (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

2.5 CC License

@Mikeycdiamond On the first page of the report it says that it is 2.5. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. I skimmed through the source when I looked for it. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Lol. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, again! I will look the draft over on the weekend if it isn't accepted by then. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
Alrighty. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Add page numbers to the report

Verifying the report source was a nightmare. Could you add the {{Reference page}} template to those citations? Mikeycdiamond (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2023 Jetline roller coaster accident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk · contribs) 23:20, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Mdm.Bla (talk · contribs) 16:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi AllegedlyAPhotographer, I will be reviewing this article. Expect for parts of the table below to be filled in over the next 24 hours, with the rest of the table coming in over the next week. mdm.bla 16:59, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. [1]
    Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. [2]
    Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. [3]
    This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. [4]
    Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. [5]
    Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. [6]
    The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

  1. Well-written:
    2. More information Criteria, Notes ...
    CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (prose)A couple of spots flow a little bit oddly, but the prose is clear and concise. No grammar concerns. mdm.bla 21:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS)The text in the lead should be expanded to give a better overview. I boldly swapped the categories and the navbox to meet MOS:ORDER. The article is compliant with MOS:WTW, and MOS:FICTION and MOS:EMBED are not applicable. mdm.bla 00:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC) Close
    Close
  2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
    3. More information Criteria, Notes ...
    CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (references)A list of references is presented that follows MOS:FNNR. mdm.bla 02:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources)The sources cited are reliable. mdm.bla 02:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Pass Pass
    (c) (original research)I did a source spot-check and do not see any concerns with unverifiability. mdm.bla 02:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism)I do not believe that there are any copyright violations from what I understand about WP:COPYOPEN and the copyright policy. However, I'm placing this one on hold while I confirm that my reading of the policy is correct. mdm.bla 02:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)On hold On hold
    Close
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. More information Criteria, Notes ...
    CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (major aspects)The major aspects are covered, but see the NPOV point. mdm.bla 02:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Pass Pass
    (b) (focused)Summary style is not required as there are no sub-articles. The article does not go into too much detail. mdm.bla 02:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Pass Pass
    Close
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. More information Notes, Result ...
    NotesResult
    I wouldn't say that this article is non-neutral, but I wish that there was some more weight given to the response from the manufacturer and/or the ride builder as opposed to the local accident authority. I don't think the article will fail GA if this doesn't get changed, but I'm marking it as on hold to see if there is any more commentary from the other viewpoints of this incident that may be included in the article. mdm.bla 02:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)On hold On hold
    Close
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. More information Comment, Result ...
    CommentResult
    No concerns. mdm.bla 23:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)Pass Pass
    Close
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. More information Criteria, Notes ...
    CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)One image is present and it is freely licensed; it was taken and uploaded by sv:User:Jolleman on Commons. mdm.bla 17:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC) Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)Caption and image choice are both fine. I would encourage adding a picture of the damage from the report (per the copyright info on page 2, they are freely licensed under Commons:Template:Cc-by-2.5-se unless otherwise stated), but this is not needed mdm.bla 23:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
    I am planning too but I am not sure how to because the images are in the PDF report. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
    		 Pass Pass
    Close

Result

More information Result, Notes ...
ResultNotes
On hold On holdThe nomination is on hold to make some slight improvements in the NPOV area and for me to confirm that the copyright situation is acceptable for a period of seven days. mdm.bla 02:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Close

Discussion

Unfortunately, both the manufacturer and the ride fabricator have been defunct for decades. So I'm not sure what else I can do. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

After doing a bit of research, I can't find any statements made by Zierer, the manufacturer of the trains. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
I checked with Earwig’s Copyvio detector. Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 07:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Mistake

I just realized I shouldn't have replied to your note in 6. (b). Sorry. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@AllegedlyAPhotographer: Don't worry about it. Because the images are licensed under CC-BY-2.5 Sweden, the steps would be: 1) Select an image from the report. 2) Extract the image with a screenshot. 3) Upload the image to Commons with commons:Special:UploadWizard (make sure to use commons:Template:Cc-by-2.5-se when uploading to provide proper attribution). 4) Use the image on the page. mdm.bla 21:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
I just saw that you have uploaded File:Control arm of Jetline's train.jpg. Please consider using the Sweden-specific CC template I linked above instead of the generic one, as they are slightly different licenses. mdm.bla 21:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Done. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

Passed. Pietrus1 (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

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:2023 Jetline roller coaster accident/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk · contribs) 23:20, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pietrus1 (talk · contribs) 02:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC)


Since the previous reviewer became inactive, I will take over this review.

Initial Review


Green tickY - Notability:
Notability assessed per: WP:Notability
  • This was a notable event even at just a glance.


Green tickY - Previous Reviews/Comments:
Any previous comments or reviews on the article should be directly acknowledged here.
  • This comment was left in December: "Verifying the report source was a nightmare. Could you add the template to those citations?"
  • This is not required for GA, but since it was brought up, I will address it.
  • There is one remaining reference which could have a page number which does not. "This failure led to the partial derailment of the front car, initiating the sequence of events that caused the fatal accident."
  • I addressed this myself.
  • I'm going to pull pieces from the previous review that was abandoned:
  • "The text in the lead should be expanded to give a better overview."
  • This will be addressed in the review.
  • "I do not believe that there are any copyright violations from what I understand..."
  • This will be addressed in the review.
  • "I wouldn't say that this article is non-neutral, but I wish that there was some more weight given to the response from the manufacturer and/or the ride builder as opposed to the local accident authority. I don't think the article will fail GA if this doesn't get changed, but I'm marking it as on hold to see if there is any more commentary from the other viewpoints of this incident that may be included in the article."
  • This will be addressed in the review.


Well-written:
Green tickY - (a) (prose)
Green tickY - Acronyms and technical terms:
Acronyms and technical terms are to be minimized. WP:Make technical articles understandable - GA is more forgiving than FA, but this serves as a general guide.
  • Green tickY - Use jargon and acronyms judiciously.
Explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used. In addition, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion.
  • What are "control arm"s and "backing bar"s?
  • These have now been explained.
  • I have wikilinked magnetic particle testing.
  • Green tickY - If no precision is lost, use common terms instead of technical terms.
Substitute technical terms with common terms where they are completely equivalent.
  • "suffered a structural failure" -> "broke"
  • "deceleration forces" -> "sudden slowing"
  • "the operational forces exceeded the weakened arm’s capacity" -> "physical forces were greater than the weakened arm could withstand"
  • Green tickY - Use less technical versions of words.
For instance, say "emissions from vehicles", rather than "vehicular emissions".
  • I made some copyedit changes to address this. Assess the diffs.
  • Green tickY - Consider prefacing explanatory sentences with caveats.
When a less complete or precise explanation is given to improve clarity, preface it with a phrase such as "Generally..." or "With some exceptions..." so the reader knows that there is more complexity behind the explanation. Follow the brief explanatory sentence(s) with more detail, or include a "robust definition" section so that the article as a whole is complete and precise.
  • No issues here.
  • Green tickY - Use bullet points where appropriate.
Use bullet point to split up long sentences, but avoid paragraph-length bullet points.
  • This is already done appropriately.
  • Green tickY - Use some short sentences and short paragraphs.
Comprehension decreases when average sentence length exceeds about 12 words. However, using too many short sentences in a row becomes monotonous and stilted; vary sentence length to maintain reader interest. Similarly, split long paragraphs into smaller ones.
  • I don't think the article is too overly technical, so no issues here.
  • Green tickY - Use language similar to what you would use in a conversation.
Many people use more technical language when writing articles and speaking at conferences, but try to use more understandable prose in conversation.
  • I made some copyedit changes to address this. Assess the diffs.
  • Green tickY - Write one level down
The details are per WP:ONEDOWN. This should be the guiding light in technical rewrites and my assessment of them. Think of this like a final check.
  • I do not think there are issues here as there is only scattered technical language.
Green tickY - Non-technical and non-grammatical Clarity:
The clarity of the article not pertaining to issues with grammar or technical concerns is documented here.
  • "certification" by which body?
  • This is addressed
  • "dynamic load"->"changing load"
  • I changed the final paragraph of the lede in order to make the actors clear.
Green tickY - Conciseness:
Do any sentences meander on or use too many words to say something simple?
  • There are a lot of basically copy-edit level changes that need to be made to sentences here. Please review my diffs.
Green tickY - Spelling and grammar:
Does it have good spelling and grammar?
  • I did some copyediting for this. It was mostly good.
Green tickY - (b) (MoS)
Green tickY - Lead:
The lead should provide a basic overview that summarizes each section of the article. The first sentence should define what the article is about in simple terms. The lead should be an appropriate size. It's usually one to two paragraphs for shorter articles, three to four for longer articles.
  • I think the lead is not very clear at the moment and does not map exactly to the article. Maybe summarize the exact chain of events that result in the disaster. I think the first sentence/paragraph needs to be expanded to start. defective arm break -> strikes track -> lap bars bend -> riders ejected or injured maybe.
  • The lede is now improved.
Green tickY - Layout:
Everything should be in the correct order. Each section should start with a == Level 2 Heading == with smaller headings dividing them when appropriate. The paragraphs should be an appropriate size. Avoid huge blocks of text or individual sentences on their own line. Images should be a reasonable size without obstructing or squishing the text. See also sections should only have relevant links that aren't found elsewhere in the article.
  • There are no issues with the layout currently.
Green tickY - Words-to-watch:
Make sure the article doesn't inappropriately use types of words that introduce bias: puffery, contentious labels, unsupported attributions, expressions of doubt, editorializing, inappropriate synonyms for "said"
  • I made some small copyedits, but there were generally no issues here.
Green tickY - (Optional for GA) Self-referential verbiage:
The article should not contain references to itself (e.g. "in this article...") or break the "fourth wall".
  • No issues here.


"Well-written" criteria result: Pass Pass


Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
🔨 - (a) (references)
Green tickY - Links Functioning:
Each included reference link or an archived version is live.
  • All links are functioning.
Green tickY - Citation Formatting:
An adequate citation style is used.
  • An adequate one is used currently.
Green tickY - Quote Issues:
There are no formatting issues with quotations, and the article does not contain over-quotation.
  • There are no quote issues currently.
Green tickY - Divergence between reference and text:
There are no glaring text-source integrity issues.
[1]: No issues with this source.
[2X]: No issues with this source.
[3]: No issues with this source.
[4]: No issues with this source.
[5]: No issues with this source.
[6]: No issues with this source.
[7]: No issues with this source.
[8]: No issues with this source.
[9]: No issues with this source.
[10]: No issues with this source.
Green tickY - (Optional for GA) Bare URLs:
No bare URLs are present in the text.
  • No issues with bare urls currently.
Green tickY - (Optional for GA) Source duplication:
All sources which are present are unique. Any duplicate citations are merged with other citations where appropriate.
  • No issues with duplication currently.
Green tickY - (Optional for GA) Too many authors:
|display_authors is used for sources with more than five authors.
  • No issues currently.
Green tickY - (Optional for GA) Consistent citation style and formatting:
Citations use a consistent style.
  • A consistent style is used.
Green tickY - (Optional for GA) Citations reference specific pages or sections rather than the entire work:
References present in the article do not simply reference an entire work when the pages of the work are itemized. If individual pages or a timestamp cannot be referenced, then a general range is given.
  • This was brought up in the previous comment. There is currently once remaining instance of this issue.
  • I have addressed this.
Green tickY - (b) (citations to reliable sources)
Green tickY - Flagging any unreliable sources:
  • There are no issues with this currently.
Green tickY - (c) (original research)
Green tickY - Checking each reference:
Each specific source is to include some confirmation that the source says what the article says the source says, often using text from the source and the article.
  • This has been addressed. There were some minor issues which I was bold and changed.
Green tickY - (d) (copyvio and plagiarism)
Green tickY - Earwig Results:
A pass using the copyvio detector Good Article Review tool is run for initial detection of copyright violations and any offending content is removed.
  • I made some copyedit changes related to phrasing paralleling the SHK report in a couple places.
Green tickY - Manual Pass:
Sources are to be checked manually where appropriate to ensure that no copyright violations are present in the text. Plagiarism or overly-close paraphrasing of sources can be considered copyright violation. Individual sources with issues are highlighted here and the exact text provided that is at issue.
  • The issues here were easily identifiable, and there ended up being a fair bit of them. I think I got them all.


"Verifiable" criteria result: Pass Pass


Broad in its coverage:
Green tickY - (a) (major aspects - broadness)
Does it accord with the coverage of other GA articles similar to its subject?
  • No issues with broadness currently.
Green tickY - (b) (focus/scope)
Make sure that the article doesn't go into excessive detail. Any unhelpful trivia should be removed. Anything that is not part of the article's scope should also be removed.
  • The article does not have issues here.


"Broadness" criteria result: Pass Pass


Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Green tickY - Opinions presented as facts:
Any time an opinion is described, an article should make it clear whose opinion it is.
  • The article passes here.
Green tickY - Facts presented as opinions:
The above should not be the case for agreed-upon facts.
  • No issues here.
Green tickY - Good/Bad Implications:
The article should not imply that one fact, opinion, or position is better than another unless that is the object of discussion and is well-sourced.
  • This passes here.
Green tickY - Participation in Arguments:
The article does not argue for a particular position or point-of-view.
  • No issues here.
Green tickY - Potentially Contentious Labels:
Contentious labels must be cited to high quality sources, especially if they're about living people.
  • I addressed a small issue here with a copyedit.
Green tickY - Fringe Views:
Fringe views and other views in the minority should not be given the same weight as major views. If most reliable sources accept one position, then alternatives should not be presented as if they are prominent.
  • No issues here.
Green tickY - Minor Points Given Undue Weight:
Minor aspects of a topic should not be given undue importance. Even if they're not controversial, it's still a neutrality issue.
  • No issues here.
Green tickY - Competing Views Integrated Well:
The article should not be divided by point of view. It should not look like it is arguing with itself or look like certain ideas were segregated from the rest of the article. Criticism and controversy sections should be avoided when possible.
  • The article does not have issues with this.
Green tickY - No one source given outsized influence:
No individual source should have outsized influence on the article, nor should the ideas of one specific writer, expert, critic, or school of thought.
  • The article relies heavily on the SHK report. If sources saying the same things can be found for various claims, I would recommend adding them alongside the report.
  • I still think more additional sources needed to be inserted into this article. The reliance on the SHK report is very noticeable. I would recommend that if additional sources can only be found to support parts of statements, together with the SHK report, that is acceptable.
  • There are now 17 citations other than the SHK report vs. 22 citations to the SHK report. Are you able to find five more to at least make it 50/50? Even if those sources are ultimately pulling from the SHK report, we would do well to lean on the editorial teams at those companies, I think.
  • The article is now 50/50 for citations from the particular source to those not from that source. This is the benchmark I have set for this. I think this is good enough for GA now.
Green tickY - The article is not divided by point-of-view:
The article should not be divided by point of view. It should not look like it is arguing with itself or look like certain ideas were segregated from the rest of the article. Criticism and controversy sections should be avoided when possible.
  • No issues here.


"Neutrality" criteria result: Pass Pass


Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Green tickY - Pass/Fail and Explanation:
The exception to this are edits in pursuit of the Good Article Review and feedback from it.
  • The article is stable as of 2026-04-23


"Stability" criteria result: Pass Pass


Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Green tickY - (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
Green tickY - Images are appropriately tagged:
Check the page for each file to see if they have valid copyright tags.
  • All are currently.
Green tickY - Non-free images are given appropriate descriptions:
If the file is non-free content, it must have a non-free use rationale explaining why it can be used on that specific article.
  • There are no non-free images currently.
Green tickY - (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)
Make sure the media is relevant to the article. Decorative or irrelevant images should be removed. Make sure images have appropriate captions.
  • All alright.


"Illustration" criteria result: Pass Pass


Overall result: Pass Pass
Explanation:
  • This passes after some revision.


Pietrus1 (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@AllegedlyAPhotographer I have used Xs to mark where I think you should make changes.
Pietrus1 (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
Alright, I will address working on them. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
I mean I will begin addressing them. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Certificate

I am unsure what certification the welder did not have that they need. Would it suffice to rewrite the section by writing the following: According SHK, "The welder who performed the work had neither a formal welding qualification nor a valid welder qualification certificate. However, he did have a lot of experience of welding various materials. " AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Obviously you know better than me what the sources actually say, but I was hoping that some color could be provided about the certification? A government certification/license? A third-party-administered one? Something which is purely industry-standard?
Pietrus1 (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
The source says "Furthermore, reference is made to the standard EN ISO 9696-1, which sets requirements that the welder have a valid welder qualification certificate for the relevant type of weld, known as a weld licence." AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 11:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
So then I would recommend adding a reference there. Perhaps add a note. Pietrus1 (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

No one source given outsized influence

1. What if the sources are getting/likely getting the information from SHK's report? 2. Are there any areas that are specifically problematic? AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all about verifiability. I interpret the requirement as a number of reliable sources repeating the claim (as there is inherently some amount of outsourcing to their editorial processes there). If the sources clearly are not using the SHK report, that would be much better as it would not create the issue of circularity, but if your words can be backed up by a number of sources as well, that would be better. Pietrus1 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/stockholm/knackt-bararm-bakom-jetline-olyckan--7fwxyz so this would be good to use for this purpose? (in applicable places) AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
As long as sources are not flagged as unreliable, I believe that is sufficient for GA. Pietrus1 (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Update

I believe I have addressed every except the one about the accident report having too much influence, I will get around to that soonish. AllegedlyAPhotographer (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Just ping me once done. Pietrus1 (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
I think its done @Pietrus1. - AllegedlyAPhotographer(talk) 16:43, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
ok. I will take a look once I am able. Pietrus1 (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
@AllegedlyAPhotographer I have taken another pass at the review. I still think it needs explanation of the certification basis and more additional sources to supplement the SHK report citations. The latter is very visually noticeable at the moment. Pietrus1 (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
Okay, I'll look into it. - AllegedlyAPhotographer(talk) 11:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Complete

@Pietrus1 I am done and I am ready for you to look over it again. - AllegedlyAPhotographer(talk) 14:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I took a look at it. Are you able to find five more additional non-SHK citations at present. Even if those ultimately pull from the same SHK report. There is still a fair bit of this article that visually relies on that source. It is well-sourced currently, but I think reliance on the source is an issue visually. Pietrus1 (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
What do you mean at present, but yeah I think I can. - AllegedlyAPhotographer(talk) 11:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
I just meant now. I think 50/50 is a good benchmark. Pietrus1 (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't understand. WHat do you mean 50/50 is a good benchmark? For what? - AllegedlyAPhotographer(talk) 02:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
For there not being over-reliance on a single source. Pietrus1 (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Complete

@Pietrus1 I am done and I am ready for you to look over it again. - AllegedlyAPhotographer(talk) 17:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

This now passes.
Pietrus1 (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
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.

Did you know nomination

Lead

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI