Talk:Southern Railway 1401/GA1

GA Review

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: Electricmaster (talk · contribs) 09:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Currency conversion needed... and technical copyedit. Once done, renominate.

Are there any copy-edit examples that you want me to improve? Trains13 (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting failing a nomination over not having currency conversions and needing some copyediting? This isn't even a real review. @Trains13: I suggest you put this up for a second opinion and get an actual review. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I was suggesting making some minor changes. At any rate, I'm making the copyediting changes (remember that cities/states should have enclosed commas at all times; for example, it should be "Richmond, Virginia, for the Southern Railway...", not "Richmond, Virginia for the Southern Railway...")

Additionally, you had hyphens in some places where en dashes should be used. I also stand by my currency conversion suggestion, which I am also going to implement. When dealing with sums of money from a historical perspective, especially if it's more than 50 years ago, I think having some kind of context for the current-day equivalent (using an approximation) is very useful. Once this is done, I will execute mark the article as good, as the level of detail, images, and relevant facts are good, and the prose seems well presented. I'm doing this for @Trains13's sake, not @Trainsandotherthings. I should also mention that I was not quickfailing this review but rather offering a couple of suggestions. I love your passion for trains and education, Trains13, and I hope you can keep these small little details in mind for any future GA nominations.

Electricmaster (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

If myself and Etriusus hadn't brought this to your attention, nothing would have been done here. It's not my nomination and I'm not asking for credit. I intervened because I saw Trains13 was being underserved by your two sentence review. I don't care if you're doing it for me or for Trains13, I care that a proper review is done. GAN isn't supposed to be an immediate "if it isn't perfect, you have to renominate", especially because the review backlog is months long. It's meant to be a discussion between the nominator and reviewer where minor issues such as currency conversions and copyediting are addressed and the article then promoted. It's not about your standards being high, it's that you didn't conduct the review properly by laying out those concerns and then giving the nominator a chance to address them. Please take a look at some other reviews for future reference. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm realizing my mistake was to say renominate, which I think I implied I was going to quick-fail it. It wasn't supposed to be a "review" but rather a couple of notes before I would make a proper assessment. Electricmaster (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not an actual GA review! You didn't give any reasons for me to copy-edit this article. *SMH* Trains13 (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit: While I'm giving this my tentative thumbs up, please check my comment about the intro. While the changes are made, please get a second opinion for approval.

Regarding your comment about the lead section, please see WP:LEADCITE, which allows for lead sections to not include citations (and the BLP exception does not apply here). This is common practice. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

---

To hell with it. @Trains13, @Trainsandotherthings, here's my review. I'm being bold and overtaking this. @Electricmaster, please use this as a reference when conducting further GA reviews. GA reviews follow a set criteria and notes do need to be made that indicate you've assessed everything. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 02:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Copy-vios

Earwig not flagging anything

Made random on what few sources there are, nothing exciting. If I find anything else I'll tag it here.

Sourcing

I'll have to take much of this on good faith

What I can access appears reliable

Images

All image rights appear to be in order

Not a big fan of the MOS:SANDWICH issue but I really don't see much of an alternative.

Prose

Link 'Ps-4 class'

Lead is a bit short, I'd love to see a bit more about the appearance/design here

It was retired from revenue.. sentence is bordering on run on, split

design with the exception of smaller wording is a tad confusion, please simplify.

arrangements word is vague, modifications?

which allows them why change to present tense?

In 1925, Southern Railway president... run-on

As opposed to the 1923–1926 batches.. sentence fragment, just rewording the section I highlighted should suffice

Atlanta to Washington, D.C., via Greenville, South Carolina, to Salisbury confusingly worded

and traveled nearly 2,000,000 miles (3,200,000 km) specify this is a lifetime metric, I would be horrified to learn there are 2 million miles between Salisbury and Monroe

Expand footnote E to its own sentence. That information is very interesting!!!

In October 1980, the Museum of History and Technology was renamed to the National Museum of American History to reflect its scope of American history. relevence. Just add 'now called the National Museum of American History, to the preceding sentence.

That should be easy enough to clean up. I'll apologize for that chaotic review up until this point, the page isn't far off from being ready. I'd prefer to not see it sit like most second opinions do. Please note, if this review takes longer than Wednesday, I'll disappear for a few days due to personal obligations offline. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 02:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Trains13 I am back and active on Wikipedia again. Just giving you a customary ping since this has been open for a bit. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 16:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article and added some new info on the lead section. Trains13 (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Trains13 Excellent!! I made some copy edits of my own. Page passes. Congrats!!! 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 13:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Etrius ( Us) 01:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

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.