Talk:Virginia Central Railroad/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Viridiscalculus (talk · contribs) 17:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to start this review by the end of the weekend. V C 17:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to start with some large-scale suggestions. Once we have those resolved, we can scale down and resolve the more detailed issues.

Almost the entire article is History, so I do not think a section named History is appropriate. Instead, you should change the four second-level headers in the History section to first-level headers.

Done

There are a lot of the same details in the Further Expansion as the Virginia Central section as in the article Blue Ridge Railroad (1849–1870). I would summarize the information of that article here and provide a template:Main link to the article.

Question: - Could you please expand on exactly which part of this section you think should be summarized? The temporary track description is probably better described here than in the Blue Ridge Railroad article, as it was proposed, designed, and built by the Virginia Central.

I compared the Blue Ridge Railroad article with what you have in this article. The material is not as overlapping as it looked on first glance. One thing I would do is check whether it would improve the article to move the Blue Ridge Railroad info that is in the second paragraph of the Louisa Railroad section into the Further Expansion as Virginia Central section. You would talk about how the railroad planned to attack the Blue Ridge at Rockfish Gap, but wait until the next section to explain how they did it. V C 02:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y I have deleted the part about the Blue Ridge Tunnel from the Louisa Railroad section, as it is already covered in the Further Expansion as the Virginia Central section. I kept the mention of the use of four tunnels in the Louisa Railroad section as it sets up the plan for the crossing at Rockfish Gap, whereas the Further Expansion as the Virginia Central section describes the execution of that plan. MountainRail (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Coal to Newport News section describes construction of the Peninsula Subdivision, which was never part of the Virginia Central. The information is important, but I do not think it deserves its own section. I suggest you put this information in the Post bellum section.

Done

Once you resolve that, you should split the section in two because the section is quite lengthy. I would avoid using Post bellum as a header because it is implied in the order of the sections that the Post bellum section discusses events after the Civil War.

Done - I renamed the section headers as Rebuilding and Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad. This section might still be too lengthy with the addition of the former Coal to Newport News section, but it lumps all the C&O information together.

It is a bit lengthy, but not excessive.

The Modern times section looks silly with just one sentence. You should expand that section and combine it with the Other uses section and try to figure out a more descriptive header for the combined information.

Done

You use bullet lists in the Civil War and Other Uses sections. You should rewrite those as prose. Personally, I would love to see more details about the significant engagements!

Done

I do not think the Significant Engagements header is necessary. The Civil War section is only three paragraphs including the last one. V C 02:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done MountainRail (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several very long paragraphs in this article. Can you try to split some of the ones that exceed 10 lines?

Done

The See also section can be removed because all four items are wikilinked somewhere in this article.

Done

I do not think the Lead adequately summarizes the rest of the article. Once you resolve all of the above, see if you can rewrite it and lengthen it. My rule of thumb is one sentence in the Lead per paragraph of the body of the article.

Done

Better. I would combine the second and third paragraphs and the fourth and fifth paragraphs. I am not a fan of two-line paragraphs. V C 02:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done MountainRail (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will put this review on hold for now. When you respond, please reply directly below each point unless doing so would be unwieldy. V C 05:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Viridiscalculus! I will try to address the issues you have noted by the end of the day. Thanks! MountainRail (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The macro stuff is almost done. Once we resolve those, I will go into some details. V C 02:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I will go into some details, starting with issues that occur throughout the article:

In section headers, you should use sentence case; that is, only capitalize proper nouns after the first word.
The subject of this article is entirely within Virginia, so you do not need to include Virginia after every town or city. You only need to include the state for out-of-state locations that are not major cities.
There are several instances of extra wikilinks. You should only wikilink each article once in the Lead and once in the prose below the Lead.
Whenever you use a measurement as an adjective, you should use the adj=on parameter to get the convert template to output the proper part of speech. For instance, "5.47 miles (8.80 km) long track" should be "5.47-mile (8.80 km) long track."
When using a full date, if the date is not ending a sentence, you should place a comma after the year. When using month-year, you should not use a comma between the month and year or use "of."
Make sure each measurement in customary units has a conversion to metric.
If possible, use an inflation template to translate the dollar amounts in the article to present-day values.

I will add more specific details later. V C 03:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done All these issues should be fixed. Let me know if I missed anything. Thanks! MountainRail (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Modern times section, there needs to be a conversion for "3 foot gauge railroad." There are multiple wikilinks for Hanover County below the Lead. I think you caught everything else. Here are some more things to work on:

In the Lead: "Operating for over one hundred years, the Chesapeake and Ohio was reorganized" This sentence's phrasing is awkward. Please reorder or split into two sentences.
In the first paragraph of The Louisa Railroad section, can you explain where Taylorsville is?
Once you introduce the acronym RF&P, you should use the acronym in each instance thereafter except for the title of the court case.
"By 1857, the railroad had reached a point known as Jackson's River Station, at the foot of the Alleghany Mountains (note that in Virginia, Allegheny is spelled with an "a"). This location would later be known as Clifton Forge and become a division point for the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway." The parentheticals (see table) and (note that in Virginia, Allegheny is spelled with an "a") are not necessary.
Jackson's River Station does not need to be wikilinked because it redirects to Clifton Forge. What I would do is mention and wikilink to the Jackson River in that sentence.
"The road connected Richmond to a point about 10 miles (16 km) east of Covington in the southwestern Shenandoah Valley (a distance of approximately 195 miles (314 km)), where the proposed Covington and Ohio Railroad would have started." This sentence is awkward. The word "where" references Covington, so you should reorder the sentence to put them together. Also, Covington is in the middle of mountains, so I do not think "in the southwestern Shenandoah Valley" is appropriate.
"This company began work in 1855 and completed important grading work on the Alleghany grade (to include the construction of numerous tunnels)" Can you integrate the parenthetical material into the sentence?
In the tunnel table, you should add a column with the lengths of the tunnels in meters. Also, the title and headers are somewhat confusing. I think the headers would be better if they were geography-based, such as the mountain range the tunnels were bored through, rather than by railroad.
"Federal raids also destroyed many sections of the line, including the majority of the railroad's depots (with notable exceptions for those at Gordonsville and Charlottesville, two key points of trade)." You should change Federal to Union because the latter is the most well known term for the North, and integrate the parenthetical into the sentence.
"Lee responded by sending cavalry" Is this Robert E. Lee? You need to clarify because another Lee is used in the same sentence.
"Construction of the old Covington and Ohio line began from both ends (Huntington, West Virginia on the western end and Covington on the eastern end) and progressed towards the middle." Again, incorporate the parenthetical into the flow of the sentence.

After you finish working on these, I will do one last read-through and we should be good to go! V C 02:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Okay, everything should be fixed. Thanks! MountainRail (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. However, I found a few problems with the references. The WVa-USA.com and Virginia Short Lines and Industrial Roads sources look like self-published sources, which are generally not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Can you find alternate, reliable sources for the information you support with those sources? V C 20:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the reference that was to WVa-USA.com with another. For the Virginia Short Lines reference, I was unable to find another reliable source that I had direct access to on the internet to support the information presented in the article. There are a few sources generated from a Google Book search (C&O Historical Society) that appear to support the info, however, these sources are only "snippet preview." Because of this, I have just deleted the information, which was not essential to the article anyways. Thanks! MountainRail (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. This review is over. Congratulations on your Good Article! V C 01:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]