Talk:Charlottesville and Albemarle Railway/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

At first pass, this looks quite good. It's comprehensive, well sourced, and well written, and seems generally ripe for promotion. I've made a few tweaks as I went; feel free to revert any with which you disagree.

Here are a few quibbles that I couldn't immediately resolve myself:

• I'd suggest splitting the lead into two paragraphs for readability--perhaps at "Increased expenses and decreasing ridership"?

•  Done

• "with two railroad stations in operation, one on the C&O line and the Union Station just west of the C&O station at the junction between the C&O and Southern railroads" -- I found this part of the sentence hard to follow at first glance; maybe break this off as a second sentence: "two railroad stations in operation. One was on the C&O line, and the second, the Union Station, was just west..." Am I understanding the meaning correctly in this rewrite?

• You are correct. I have reworded as you suggested. MountainRail (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Development of the streetcar system" -- I'd suggest breaking this long paragraph into at least two for readability (Perhaps at "this continued until...")

•  Done

• Route Description -- split large paragraph for readability

• I split the paragraph before describing the location of the passing sidings. MountainRail (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Two statements here that it would be better to fix in time per WP:REALTIME for clarity in the long-term:
  • • To address these issues, the city has begun planning and analyzing various methods of public transportation for implementation within Charlottesville, one of which includes the development of a streetcar system. ("in the early 2000s, the city began...") -  Done
    • though no concrete plans have been developed or implemented ("as of 2012") -  Done
• The track gauge given in the infobox needs a source -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC) -  Done

• Thank you for taking the time to review this article! I believe I have addressed all the issues above. Thanks! MountainRail (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the quick fixes. Sorry for the delay in responding; Mrs. Khazar and I somewhat unexpectedly bought a house yesterday! It was a great purchase, but has, needless to say, thrown us into a bit of disarray.

I'll do the checklist now, but I imagine this is ready to pass. --Khazar2 (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA