Talk:Stony Brook Railroad/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 13:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- No rush, I actually wasn't expecting the review to get picked up this quickly so there's still a few loose ends I need to tie up. Noting for the record that I am very busy IRL this week (I'm in tech week for a musical that opens on Friday) so my responses may be delayed. I will address comments as soon as possible. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not in a hurry either, so just let me know when you're set, and I'll get to it. I like doing railroad articles, my father was a railfan and I can just see him chortling in the afterlife at me doing railroad stuff... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's mostly ready to go, there's just some stuff in the middle of the history section I have not fixed up yet. As is usual for the articles I work on, there were scarcely any inline citations. I should get to it sometime today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not in a hurry either, so just let me know when you're set, and I'll get to it. I like doing railroad articles, my father was a railfan and I can just see him chortling in the afterlife at me doing railroad stuff... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think the article is ready for reviewing now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Lead:
- "Operation of the Stony Brook Railroad in turn passed to the Boston and Maine Railroad when it leased the Boston and Lowell in 1887, which became a subsidiary of Guilford Rail System (known since 2006 as Pan Am Railways) in 1983." this is very convoluted. Perhaps "The Botson and Maine Railroad took over operation of the Stony Brook in 1887 when it leased the Boston and Lowell Railroad. In 1983 the Boston and Maine was bought by the Guildford Rail System, which changed its name to Pan Am Railways (PAR) in 2006."?
- I've rewritten this pretty closely aligned with your suggested wording. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Can we get a mention of location a bit earlier in the lead - perhaps "is a American railroad company in Massachusetts which ..."?
- I've changed the first sentence to state "is a railroad company in Massachusetts, United States." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- link for "chartered"?
- The best link for that would just be to charter, I'd say. We don't have an article specifically for railroad charters. I've added this link. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Operation of the Stony Brook Railroad in turn passed to the Boston and Maine Railroad when it leased the Boston and Lowell in 1887, which became a subsidiary of Guilford Rail System (known since 2006 as Pan Am Railways) in 1983." this is very convoluted. Perhaps "The Botson and Maine Railroad took over operation of the Stony Brook in 1887 when it leased the Boston and Lowell Railroad. In 1983 the Boston and Maine was bought by the Guildford Rail System, which changed its name to Pan Am Railways (PAR) in 2006."?
- I did some copyediting and links - please make sure I didn't make an errors or screw anything up.
- Everything looks ok to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- A very nice little article on a ... very small little railroad. Just the above and you should be good to go for GA status.
- I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
- I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: That should be everything. Let me know if you recommend any other changes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Those changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)