Talk:Connecticut Southern Railroad/GA1

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Etriusus in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 06:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply


Alright, lets get this review underway. I am quite familiar with T&OT's work and have high hopes for this review. Per usual, please use a   Done, strikethrough , or some other means of making when an issue has been resolved.

Stability

edit
  • Nothing to note. T&OT is the primary author with very little activity on the page outside of their expansions.

Copy-Vios

edit
  • Earwig gives this the green light.
  • Did a handful of random copy-vio spotchecks, nothing exciting noted.

Sourcing

edit

Images

edit
  • One fair use image with rational given. 'Author or copyright owner' section is blank. I get that it can be reasonably inferred but please humor me and fill it out.
    I'll do you one better - I've replaced the old logo with an SVG from the company's website (and filled out the author information). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • No other concerns noted.

Prose

edit

Lead

I know CITELEAD has a number of exceptions. I just want to confirm that it's appropriate for this kind of article. WikiProject Trains isn't my normal wheelhouse. Etrius ( Us) 03:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Most examples I've seen (just checked a few GAs/FAs) actually don't cite the reporting mark at all, so this is certainly better than that! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Infobox

  • Gauge size is not mention in the body of the article. No citation on the info-box.
    The entire U.S. rail network (with very few exceptions) is standard gauge [1][2]. You will not find a citation stating the track gauge of every single railroad, as this is considered common knowledge. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
Alright, sounds good. No need to cite if common knowledge. Etrius ( Us) 21:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

History

  • Layout is a bit strange. I don't see the need for 5 discrete paragraphs. 2-3 should suffice.
    Section has been fleshed out now, so this should no longer be an issue. Let me know if you disagree. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • which became CSO's new connection in West Springfield and New Haven not supported by citation.
    New source used. I was trying to establish that Conrail was taken over by CSX. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Nothing past 2012? I did a cursory search and found another line being abandoned. Please do a double check to make sure this page is up-to-date. I can try to compile some sources if you want.
    I actually was aware of that abandonment, but had forgotten about it until you reminded me. Added to the article now. I've also added some information on the Hartford Line opening in 2018, and reactivation of a connection with the Providence and Worcester Railroad in 2019. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Operations

I figured I was just missing it. Thanks for double checking. Etrius ( Us) 01:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply



Putting page on hold. I trust you can manage to clean-up/clarify these issues. Please ping me when you're done or if you have any questions. I'll probably add more things as the review get going, these are just my initial concerns (as I sit here and write at 1 AM). I made a handful of minor edits, feel free to check them. Etrius ( Us) 06:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Trainsandotherthings I see all of my concerns have been addressed. Went ahead and gave it a second pass. Page is good to go and passes GA review. Congratulation on another job well done. Etrius ( Us) 03:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
    Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    Yes
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    Yes
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Article passes GA review. Good work!
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.