Talk:EMD F40PH/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 07:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The URL for External link/Specification Sheet seems to be malformed. Everything else looks fine. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks for that fix. Shearonink (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyright violations found with the copyvio tool/Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Factual, straightforward article. Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Very stable, no edit-wars. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   I didn't realize that they could all look so different. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The external link needs to be fixed. Everything else seems to be good to go, will be doing a few more proofreading/deep-readthroughs to make sure I haven't missed anything. Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   The site in question is dead; I replaced it with an equivalent link. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

   I honestly couldn't find much wrong with this article. It's a straightforward article about a mechanical subject, the references are all nice and clean, the prose is easy-to-understand, the images are appropriate, the image-permissions are good. And I love the photos of this locomotive - didn't realize when I started that they would be so familiar-looking to me, the Wikilinking is thoughtful...nicely-done. I know there are possible improvements going forward - keeping the article up-to-date as the locomotives age out of active use, and so on. Congratulations, it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)