Template:Did you know nominations/Valhalla train crash
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 12:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Valhalla train crash edit
... that six people died and fifteen were injured at the February 2015 train crash (wreckage pictured) in Valhalla, New York?
ALT1:... that a Mercedes-Benz driver fatally crashed into a train (wreckage pictured) in Valhalla, New York, killing five passengers and injuring fifteen more?ALT2:... that a Mercedes-Benz crashed into a train (wreckage pictured) in Valhalla, New York, killing its driver and five passengers and injuring fifteen more?- ALT3:... that, unlike most grade crossing accidents, the recent train crash (wreckage pictured) in Valhalla, New York, caused fatalities on the train in addition to killing the driver?
- ALT4:... that the driver killed in the Valhalla train crash (wreckage pictured) had her Mercedes-Benz ML350 on the tracks for about 30 seconds before the train hit it?
ALT5:... that National Transportation Safety Board investigators are considering whether traffic detouring around an accident on the nearby Taconic State Parkway was a contributing factor to the Valhalla train crash (wreckage pictured)?- Reviewed: Tunisian Baccalaureate
- Comment: Failed ITN nomination
Created by Ktr101 (talk), Epicgenius (talk), Mjroots (talk), Ɱ (talk), and Daniel Case (talk). Nominated by George Ho (talk) at 19:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC).
- I have rewritten the hooks to be more interesting. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- No need to rewrite; just simply add. I added back my first three hooks and converted your hooks into ALTs. --George Ho (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Except that just-the-facts-ma'am hooks are dull as grey dishwater (and even more so when they're just three different ways of phrasing the same thing). By the time this hook runs, the story will be old news. Better to use something people won't be aware of. Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's a good point, DC. EEng (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, I feel that none of the above alt hooks are particularly interesting, and make the crash sound as run-off the mill as deadly train crashes go. I have an alternative:
ALT 6: ... that the February 2015 train crash (wreckage pictured) in Valhalla, New York is the deadliest in the Metro-North Railroad's history?
- I'd like to officially add this alt hook to this nomination. Epic Genius (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. However, unfortunately, it is "run of the mill as deadly train crashes go." Yes, it's the deadliest in the railroad's history. But six deaths is rather a small number of fatalities compared to some other "deadliests" in other railroads' history. Also consider that it's not that exceptional since MNRR has had only two passenger-fatality accidents in its history. Which actually suggests another hook possibility:
ALT7: ... that Metro-North Railroad, after having no passenger fatalities for its first 32 years, just had its second fatal accident (wreckage pictured) in 14 months?Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. However, unfortunately, it is "run of the mill as deadly train crashes go." Yes, it's the deadliest in the railroad's history. But six deaths is rather a small number of fatalities compared to some other "deadliests" in other railroads' history. Also consider that it's not that exceptional since MNRR has had only two passenger-fatality accidents in its history. Which actually suggests another hook possibility:
- Personally, I feel that none of the above alt hooks are particularly interesting, and make the crash sound as run-off the mill as deadly train crashes go. I have an alternative:
- That's a good point, DC. EEng (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- Let me suggest we put this on hold awhile until the investigation develops something more interesting. EEng (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- That could take months. In the meantime, we could, it has occurred to me, fold that "deadliest" bit int some of the other hooks. I will try later. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- How about death by third-rail debris? (BTW, I'd just as soon see the names of the dead removed from the article -- I don't see how they serve the reader's understanding of the subject, and it's a bit invasive, especially given the recency of this.) EEng (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- They have been widely reported already, one of them has turned out to be notable, and no one's objected to the similar section in December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have no doubt they're widely reported. My fundamental concern is that it just doesn't give the reader any better understanding of the accident. EEng (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- We also have a list of victims of the Virginia Tech shooting in that article (albeit in a box; which perhaps we could consider here). Apparently the practice is fairly widespread. WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply since that refers specifically to articles about the recently deceased regardless of notability, not mentions of their names in articles about the notable events that led to their passing. Basically, if you think this is something we shouldn't ever ever do, the issue should be addressed globally as a policy reform. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's not a big deal and I don't feel strongly about it, nor do I see it as a global issue. For me it's just a question of editorial judgment: 5 years from now, will readers wanting to learn about the accident find their understanding improved by this list of names? I happen to think the answer is No, and that this clutters up the article. I wouldn't mention it except that, in addition, for a recent event it's a bit WP:NEWSy to include this information, and -- yes -- I think it's kind of invasive. Please don't quote any more policies because the question isn't whether it's allowable, just whether it improves the article. EEng (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- OK, sorry if I misread you. You have a point ... perhaps this will not seem relevant in a few years. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- It's not a big deal and I don't feel strongly about it, nor do I see it as a global issue. For me it's just a question of editorial judgment: 5 years from now, will readers wanting to learn about the accident find their understanding improved by this list of names? I happen to think the answer is No, and that this clutters up the article. I wouldn't mention it except that, in addition, for a recent event it's a bit WP:NEWSy to include this information, and -- yes -- I think it's kind of invasive. Please don't quote any more policies because the question isn't whether it's allowable, just whether it improves the article. EEng (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- We also have a list of victims of the Virginia Tech shooting in that article (albeit in a box; which perhaps we could consider here). Apparently the practice is fairly widespread. WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply since that refers specifically to articles about the recently deceased regardless of notability, not mentions of their names in articles about the notable events that led to their passing. Basically, if you think this is something we shouldn't ever ever do, the issue should be addressed globally as a policy reform. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have no doubt they're widely reported. My fundamental concern is that it just doesn't give the reader any better understanding of the accident. EEng (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- They have been widely reported already, one of them has turned out to be notable, and no one's objected to the similar section in December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- How about death by third-rail debris? (BTW, I'd just as soon see the names of the dead removed from the article -- I don't see how they serve the reader's understanding of the subject, and it's a bit invasive, especially given the recency of this.) EEng (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- That could take months. In the meantime, we could, it has occurred to me, fold that "deadliest" bit int some of the other hooks. I will try later. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes... but it's relevant now, so we should come up with a hook that makes the reader interested. Like this:
ALT8: ... that Metro-North Railroad, the busiest commuter railroad in the U.S., recently had its second fatal accident (wreckage pictured) in 14 months?
- Epic Genius (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- In that vein, as per my previous suggestion of combining the "deadliest" aspect with the other hooks:
- * ALT9:... that the driver killed in the Valhalla train crash (wreckage pictured), the deadliest in Metro-North Railroad's history, had her Mercedes-Benz ML350 on the tracks for about 30 seconds before the train hit it?
- *
ALT10:... that National Transportation Safety Board investigators are considering whether traffic detouring around an accident on the nearby Taconic State Parkway was a contributing factor to the Valhalla train crash (wreckage pictured), the deadliest in Metro-North Railroad's history?
New enough, long enough, within policy, no copyvios detected, QPQ done. So many hooks! Okay, ALT5 and ALT10 are too long, and I'm also striking the original hook, ALT1, ALT2, ALT6, and ALT8 as insufficiently interesting given the other hooks. For ALT7, the article does not mention that Metro-North is 32 years old; I'll restore it if a source is found. That leaves three, all of which are referenced in the text. My preference in descending order is ALT9, ALT4, ALT3. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Antony-22,
- How is this ref for 1983? --Jeremyb (talk) 08:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)