Talk:High-speed train derailment in central Queensland (Australia)

This article has been submitted for review by the Wikinews community. The review period is currently a minimum of 8 hours for regular articles and 4 hours for urgent stories. An article needs to find consensus - no objections - in the following categories in order to be accepted for publication. See also Wikinews:Article stages#Review for information on what constitutes a valid objection.

Is the article neutral?

All factual claims need to be attributed or sourced. On-topic information which is relevant to the article should be added. Off-topic information should NOT be added to "balance out" an article.

Is the article accurate and have sources been cited?

All facts should be verifiable. Factual claims which are attributed to a person or group, but considered false by another person or group can remain in the article as long as the controversy is accurately represented.

Is the article legal?

Does the article violate any laws of the state of Florida in the United States? Specifically, does it violate other people's copyright, in text or images? Please make sure that no images have been directly copied from a non-free source without permission, and that any brief text quoted from a non-free source is attributed accurately. Use Google News and Google Search and pick individual phrases from the article to verify this.

Does the article comply with our policies and guidelines?

Aside from the above categories, does the article comply with Wikinews:Content guide and Wikinews:Style guide?'

Is the article comprehensive?

Relevant information on the topic should be included, while keeping in mind timeliness. Given that an almost infinite amount can be said about any topic, objections in this category carry less weight than those in other categories.

This isn't comprehensive in the slightest. It might have been comprehensive at 2am this morning, but a lot more has come out during the day, and it looks really bad if we're going to release articles that are so out of date. Ambi 12:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this is a weakness of having to wait awhile for these things to be approved. Other media sources released an article something like this at the time I put it down for review, but by the time this article has been checked by an admin, it's already out of date. Ideally, we'd release a snap brief summary of the item, followed by continually more comprehensive updates, but I don't see how it can work with the current proposed mechanism. Lankiveil 05:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see no problem in the article

It seems ok to me.--carlosar 01:45 Nov 18 2004 (UTC)