Talk:Channel Tunnel/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The history overview is a little different than I'm used to. It hits a variety of topics, but is not comprehensive, so I'd probably reorder "History" into chronological order, top to bottom. A missing comma in the cost figure (unless £4600 is really how it's written, not ₤4,600). "On November 18, 1996 a fire broke out on a heavy goods vehicle shuttle wagon within the tunnel but nobody was seriously hurt in the incident." - aiee, that's rough. Rewrite. Overall, the prose is very halting and choppy, and could stand the eyes of an experienced copyeditor. "The removal of a bottleneck like the Channel Tunnel does not necessarily induce economic gains in all adjacent regions, the image of a region being connected to the European high-speed transport and active political response are more important for regional economic development." - a run-on sentence, and I don't know what it's trying to say. "No major geological hazards were identified, however the Quaternary undersea valley Fosse Dangaered, and Castle Hill landslip located at the English portal were concerning." - to whom? "Steering cannot be locked like the STTS vehicles, maximum speed is 50 km/h (31 mph)." - needs a verb.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   "Overview" section is not referenced. In a practical sense, the intro section is the overview, so this paragraph should be moved here. "The exact cause is unknown, although it was not a Eurotunnel equipment or rolling stock problem; it may have been due to arson of a heavy goods vehicle." - the source does not support this, currently original research. "The overall environmental impact is almost certainly negative." - either it is or it isn't; if neither, the reasons must be cited with a statement like this. The first Engineering section is unreferenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See overview concerns above. "cost of 170 million francs, or less than 7 million pounds sterling." - convert to present-day pounds and dollars... I have no idea how much this is. The progress section may be out of place. I was fooled by the fact there was no engineering information in the history section (which seemed to be where it belonged), so my personal preference would be to consider rearranging the article so that it ran completely chronologically, early history through construction through opening. If this isn't feasible, ignore as necessary. :-) "a cost benefit analysis of the Channel Tunnel indicated that the British economy would have been better off if the Tunnel had never been constructed." - this point strikes me as needing more emphasis, or needs competing studies (if any). Eurotunnel shares - where were they traded? Is the Key Dates table really necessary? What's a "drainage adit"? The Tunnelling section needs to be rewritten for the average reader - explain the New Austrian Tunneling Method. The fire study at the end of the article seems out of place.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The first image needs an author, or specify "unknown". The colors in the flowchart appear to be arbitrary.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The article seems to wander, a lot. I'm pretty sure the issues would be helped by a total reordering in terms of time (i.e., Early history, planning, engineering, opening, services, recent events (specific), recent analyses (environmental, economic). As it is, parts of all of the above are sprinkled liberally throughout the article, which makes it hard to follow. Good luck! —Rob (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)