Talk:2023 Jetline roller coaster accident/GA2

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

Y - Notability:

Notability assessed per: WP:Notability

• This was a notable event even at just a glance.

Y - 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:

Y - (a) (prose)

Y - 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.

• Y - 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.

• Y - 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"

• Y - 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.

• Y - 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.

• Y - Use bullet points where appropriate.

Use bullet point to split up long sentences, but avoid paragraph-length bullet points.

• This is already done appropriately.

• Y - 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.

• Y - 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.

• Y - 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.

Y - 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.

Y - 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.

Y - Spelling and grammar:

Does it have good spelling and grammar?

• I did some copyediting for this. It was mostly good.

Y - (b) (MoS)

Y - 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.

Y - 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.

Y - 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.

Y - (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

Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

🔨 - (a) (references)

Y - Links Functioning:

Each included reference link or an archived version is live.

• All links are functioning.

Y - Citation Formatting:

An adequate citation style is used.

• An adequate one is used currently.

Y - Quote Issues:

There are no formatting issues with quotations, and the article does not contain over-quotation.

• There are no quote issues currently.

Y - 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.

Y - (Optional for GA) Bare URLs:

No bare URLs are present in the text.

• No issues with bare urls currently.

Y - (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.

Y - (Optional for GA) Too many authors:

|display_authors is used for sources with more than five authors.

• No issues currently.

Y - (Optional for GA) Consistent citation style and formatting:

Citations use a consistent style.

• A consistent style is used.

Y - (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.

Y - (b) (citations to reliable sources)

Y - Flagging any unreliable sources:

• There are no issues with this currently.

Y - (c) (original research)

Y - 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.

Y - (d) (copyvio and plagiarism)

Y - 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.

Y - 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

Broad in its coverage:

Y - (a) (major aspects - broadness)

Does it accord with the coverage of other GA articles similar to its subject?

• No issues with broadness currently.

Y - (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

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Y - Opinions presented as facts:

Any time an opinion is described, an article should make it clear whose opinion it is.

• The article passes here.

Y - Facts presented as opinions:

The above should not be the case for agreed-upon facts.

• No issues here.

Y - 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.

Y - Participation in Arguments:

The article does not argue for a particular position or point-of-view.

• No issues here.

Y - 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.

Y - 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.

Y - 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.

Y - 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.

Y - 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.

Y - 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

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Y - 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

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Y - (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)

Y - Images are appropriately tagged:

Check the page for each file to see if they have valid copyright tags.

• All are currently.

Y - 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.

Y - (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

Overall result: 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)