Talk:Gerrards Cross Tunnel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I'm sorry for the delay in getting this far. This way one of several GAN reviews that I started in the run up to Christmas, and Christmas got in the way of all of my reviews.

Overall this appears to be a reasonably comprehensive article. Its split into, what appear to be, "sensible" subsections and is well illustrated; but a bit more work is needed in cleaning up some of the citations before I can award GA-status.

At this point I'll do a more detailed review of the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last, and just highlight some of the "problems" as I see them. Pyrotec (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC) - Ref 1 (Global powers of Retailing) is a 36-page pdf report. As it is being used as a citation, the relevant page number (or page numbers) should be provided.[reply]

Done wacky wace 10:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much use is made of a Guardian newspaper article, dated 25 August 2005, it's cited 11 times; yet the web version of the article contains a partial retraction printed on 1 September 2005. This retraction provides little in the way of reassurance that this article can be considered a WP:reliable source of information. I would have expected confirmation of some of its claims from other sources.

Unfortunately I was only able to verify use "d" of the Guardian source, and I share your concerns over the reliability of the article. I would be happy to remove any information cited only to the Guardian source if you think it is controversial and could be challenged. wacky wace 15:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm confining my reply to the use of the Guardian in this section only (it's used in other sections but I'm disregarding them so far). I don't think it is controversial, but it might be inaccurate. I suggest that a minor copy edit might solve the problem. The House of Commons has more information, but would you trust an MP to get it right (not if it is an expenses claim form). Changing "...first proposed a store on the site in 1996" to something along the lines of "...first submitted a Planning Application for the site in 1996" would probably be acceptable. Also, making it clearer that the quotation from James Ford appears to have been made after the collapse. Pyrotec (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article, using the Guardian as a source states "Tesco ...... first proposed a store on the site in 1996". Well, that does not appear to be the whole story; since a debate in the House of Commons states that "Tesco purchased from British Rail as far back as the early 1990s the air rights to build a store over the railway line at Gerrards Cross where it lies in the cutting. However, Tesco submitted a planning application for the construction of the store only in 1997, the idea being that the railway line would be filled in with a tunnel. Fill would be placed on top, and a store and a car park placed on top of that" (see [1] and [2]). So the proposal is somewhat older than 1996 - that appears to be the date that the Planning permission was applied for. That is not the only controversy which appears in some reports, but is not covered by this article (I may or may not come back to this later).

....to be continued (next year - 2011). Pyrotec (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I regard this section as missing some vital information. From what has been provided so far, we are informed that there is a tunnel with a "live railway" underneath it, i.e. trains are running through it, foundation and steel work has been erected and covering material is being laid over the tunnel. In the light of comments in the Service disruption section, I would have expected in summarised-form some information as to how these structure came to be placed over the railway - possibly the line was shut but nothing is said about it.

It gets a bit tricky at some of these points, because some of this stuff isn't in sources. I'm pretty sure that the tunnel segments themselves would have been erected overnight in what is called a "possession" when no trains are running, but then the backfilling operation would have been whilst trains were running. I'll have another look and see whether I can explain it a bit better. Quantpole (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC) - Based on information elsewhere, it appears that the supermarket, specifically the "The foundations had been built and the steel frame of the supermarket erected." may not have been built over the tunnel, but one of the photographs seems to indicate that it might have been. I would have expected a definitive statement as to whether this specific part of the construction was over/affected-by the collapsed section of tunnel.[reply]

The steelwork of the supermarket had been erected, but the steel columns themselves were on either side of the tunnel with the roof spanning over the top. In other words the store itself is built over the tunnel, but the main structure isn't supported directly on it. The collapse itself was a couple of hundred yards away from the store, so the steelwork that had been erected wasn't a problem. The steelwork was all removed because they completely redid the whole tunnel, not just the collapsed sections. Quantpole (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information. I'm "ticking this" off since the information provided here here suggests that my comment is not relevant to this section, but I am going to return to it again in the Aftermath section. Pyrotec (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC) - Ref 4 is an article in the New Civil Engineer by a named author, but the citation does not name the author - it should. Its also a subscription only site, so the claims can't be verified without a subscription.[reply]

Noted author's name; added (subscription required) to ref. wacky wace 15:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse -

This looks OK.

Service disruption -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC) - I'll accept the title, but the first few words in this section states: "Service was disrupted for two months after the collapse". This is WP:Vagueness, the line appears to have been closed and train services diverted onto other lines. I verified that elsewhere.[reply]

Added new information as to nature of disruption. wacky wace 15:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC) - I'm sorry, but I'm going to come back to this one. I checked a contemporary source (Haig, Philip, 2005, Rail, No. 518, (July 20-August 2), EMAP, Pp. 12-13). It states that by 11 July 11,000 tonnes of spoil, 29 collapsed arch sections and a further 16 arch sections that were suspected of being damaged were removed. I have no wish to argue over the tonnage of spoil, that would not serve any useful purpose; but the article does not currently specifically mention that parts of the tunnel (other than what had collapsed) were removed.Pyrotec (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation -
Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC) - Ref 3 is an article in the New Civil Engineer by a named author, but the citation does not name the author - it should. Its also a subscription only site, so the claims can't be verified without a subscription.[reply]

Noted author's name; added (subscription required) to ref. wacky wace 15:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Thanks for having a look through. In terms of using New Civil Engineer as a reference, when I first wrote the article it wasn't subscription only, so that's a bit annoying. It is probably the most well known periodical for engineering however, so should be available at pretty much all university libraries. If there are any points that you aren't sure of I can let you know in more detail what the article says.
The other frustrating thing for this article is that the HSE report hasn't been published yet, which would provide a lot more detail. I know for instance that there were other factors in the collapse, but they aren't in the sources at present so I can't talk about them. (I wasn't involved in the project myself but it has been the subject of seminars from the engineering institution which I have heard about). Quantpole (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I wasn't aware the HSE were to publish a full report to the general public—if this is indeed the case I think perhaps failing the GAN would be a good idea. Obviously all the issues raised would be addressed, but I would prefer the article to pass only if it contains all the facts—rather than one that includes preliminary information. I had thought all inquires were wrapped up, but if not the article cannot really be stable. wacky wace 14:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky because it isn't definite that they will release their findings. It's a pretty long time ago now that it happened, and the latest the NCE said about it was "The cause of the accident is still subject to a Health and Safety Executive investigation, but initial indications suggest that the sequence for placing fill on the tunnel was the main contributing factor". I'm happy that what is written is accurate but it isn't the full story, but the full story might not be released, so we are stuck. As long as we make this clear and reflect the sources I don't think it is a problem though. There might be outstanding legal action as well but I haven't seen anything about that. Quantpole (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've already checked the HSE site and found little information of relevance. Pyrotec (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any valid reason why this article can't be awarded GA-status provided that it meets WP:WIAGA. If the HSE does release a report and/or initiate criminal prosecutions in the future, and it has made no announcements that it tends to be either, then the article will need updating; but that is crystal balling.

So far all I've seen is some third party information that one or two companies have been awarded contracts to provide consultancy on the stability of these types of tunnel construction/back fill operations; but nothing that is WP:Verifiable. Pyrotec (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath -

This section appears to have gone off track (sorry, pun not intended). My objection would be in respect of WP:WIAGA, 3 (a) & (b).

Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC) - I'm happy to accept that the first paragraph is relevant, but ref 13 has a broken link. This first paragraph used 2005 references, so I regard it as a "historical" background on the controversy regarding the construction of the store.[reply]

I've had to remove Ref 13 and the content that was referenced in it as the quote is not available elsewhere online. wacky wace 10:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC) - I don't accept that the second and third paragraphs with their extensive quotes are relevant in the context of what has been given in the article, especially a "blah, blah" quote. The HC debate (see above) discusses that dust problems from the use of pulverised ash, but since the article does not currently mention this grievance I don't see the relevance of these extensive quotes.[reply]

Two paragraphs shortened to one, removed unneeded quotes and paraphrased. wacky wace 10:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to accept the last two paragraphs as being relevant.

Furthermore:

I raised a point above in Background about the store steel work. In view of comments above, I consider that the store aught to be mentioned in this section. Possibly something along the lines of: the store itself was a steel frame construction built across the line of the tunnel, but the weight was not borne by the tunnel. This had to be demolished and rebuilt. I have no personal knowledge of this, so I don't know whether my interpretation is correct; and whatever is given needs to be verifiable. However, it (i.e. the rebuilding) was part of the aftermath
There is unfinished business that needs to be brought in. There is an (ongoing?) HSE investigation (currently unpublished) and the possibility of legal action which might be under health and safety legislation and/or criminal law, but nothing has happened yet. We can't do a Christal ball, but it would be relevant/pertinent to state that the cause of the collapse has not been fully determined, nor has "blame" for the collapse been allocated. There also appear to be outstanding claims from Network Rail and Chiltern Railways against Tesco and/or other parties; and Chiltern Railways has a different owner.

I've been having a look around and there is more info available to go in. There is quite a lot about Tesco going to court because their insurers refused to pay out (Tesco lost). I'll try and add stuff in when I can. Quantpole (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lead -

OK so far.
It should act has both an introduction to the article and provide a summary of the main points, which is why I tend to do the Lead last. I'm still holding judgement on whether anything more needs to go in.

Pyrotec (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. I believe that the article can made GA-status this time round provided that it complies with WP:WIAGA; and I've suggested above what needs to be done, but I'm not ruling out any counter proposals (since they are somewhat source-dependent). Pyrotec (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
This aspect has been considerably improved during this review, but progress has stalled. Most of the points are covered, but there is no mention of the outstanding health and safety (and possibly criminal) investigations in the cause(s) of the collapse, liabilities and compensation claims. Whilst some information, particularly from the HSE, has not been published and there is no indication of any intention to do so, this aspect of the collapse can be considerably expanded without falling into WP:OR.

B. Focused:
This aspect has been considerably improved during this review, but progress has stalled. Much of the latter sections consisted of detailed newpaper quotations from people "anti" the store/tunnel construction; but, as the full background was not given, the reasons for these viewpoints were unclear. Much of these quotations have been removed and thus I see no continuing need to add the "missing" background to these complaints.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

This article is not to far from being a GA, but without additional information I'd consider it a B-class article. I regard it has having the potential to become a GA; and the article can be renominated for WP:GAN once these points have been considered. Pyrotec (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]