Talk:Warwick Railway

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Steelkamp in topic GA Review

Did you know nomination

edit
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk05:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • ... that the Warwick Railway successfully operated independently for decades despite having just three employees, two locomotives, and less than 1 mile of track? Source: "Railroad 'Mom-Pop' Operation". Hartford Courant. UPI. 1976-01-05. p. 12. [1]

Created by Trainsandotherthings (talk). Self-nominated at 04:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC).Reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   Offline source used for much of article accepted in good faith. I found the first edition of The Rail Lines of Southern New England at my alma mater's library (perfect excuse to go for a walk), and it verified (pg. 133, 134) all of the information cited to the second edition except for the bit about 1999 (the first edition was published in 1995). --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 20:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply


Promoting the main hook to Prep 6. Pretty interesting one! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Warwick Railway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Steelkamp (talk · contribs) 10:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply


Hello. I will be doing a good article review of this article. I aim to complete this review within the next few days. It should be pretty close to GA level judging from my initial glance over it. If you would like to repay the favour, I have some good article nominations at WP:GAN right now. Steelkamp (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good article criteria

edit

  Well written

edit

  Verifiable with no original research

edit
  • I checked every reference that I could access (all but the first one), and they seem to be reliable. The article also conforms with what they say. I will have to assume good faith on the one I could not access. This criterion is passed. Good job, I don't think I've ever done a GA review where I don't have any suggestions for sourcing. Steelkamp (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Broad in its coverage

edit

  Neutral

edit

  Stable

edit

  Illustrated, if possible

edit

General

edit

I've done all my suggestions for criteria 1 and 3. I have yet to look at sources. Steelkamp (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply