Talk:Polson Logging Co. 2

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Polson Logging Co. 2 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Polson Logging Co. 2 was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 26, 2023). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 23 December 2022 by reviewer Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs).

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Polson Logging Co. 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 18:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article over the next couple of days. Looking at the contributor's history, I hope that I was correct in changing the identity of the nominator from the IP 23.169.64.51 to Larrysteamfan and that the currently active user account will receive the notifications for this review. If I'm pinging the wrong person, let me know and I'll try to undo the mess. I'll update this review in different sections, but please refrain from responding to anything until I have completed the review. My final edit on the review will be to complete #7 Overall Assessment, and leave a comment below the table. Then I'll leave it up to you to handle everything until you notify me that you are ready for me to reassess if needed. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.	MOS:LEAD issues: 1. (MOS:INTRO) The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The lead section states "Disagreement over who should cover the restoration costs ultimately led to an arbiter finding in Lichter's favor." but that's not what the article body says. The lead section states "It will be moved to the Albany and Eastern Railroad some time in 2023." but that's not what the article body says. MOS:LAYOUT issues: 1. (MOS:SEEALSO) The section should be a bulleted list, sorted either logically (for example, by subject matter), chronologically, or alphabetically. MOS:WTW issues: 1. (MOS:RELTIME) Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date. Lead section example of this include "Currently, it is stored at the Oregon Rail Heritage Center...", Career in Oregon example is "While the engine is still stored in Portland..." 2. (MOS:CLICHE) Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions. Examples include "returned to full steam", "bought out by", "struck a deal", "decisions without his blessing", "they already had enough on their plate", "first landed" 3. (MOS:EUPHEMISM) Euphemisms should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms. Examples "passed away". 4. (MOS:SAID) In some types of writing, repeated use of said is considered tedious, and writers are encouraged to employ synonyms. On Wikipedia, it is more important to avoid language that makes undue implications. Examples: "Lichter expressed that the OCSR...", "He explained that the Museum...", "Jeff Bloohm, explained that the board’s...", etc. 5. (MOS:WEASEL) Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed. One example is, "it was estimated that it would cost the MCRM around $75,000", but there are several places throughout the article where the use of passive voice obscures who did or said the verb in the sentence.
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.	Inline references are provided. I like the fact that most of the individual statements include citations, especially when an article is under active development so if a later edit changes the order of the sentences or if another fact is injected in the middle of the paragraph, the attribution of each statement is preserved. Note: this is not a GA criteria item, but one way to reduce the number of footnote marks that occur when several consecutive sentences are attributed to the same source is to comment out some of the repetitive citations. See the last paragraph of the WP:REPCITE section for clues about how to do that. Upon source checking the references, however, there are problems. The "revenue service" section states "No. 2 had a design flaw on the equalising beams between the rear trailing axle and the drivers, which were prone to breaking. This flaw was later fixed, when the beams were modified with thicker materials." and is attributed to source #2, which does not say any of that. In the same section, "The Polson Company already owned two other mikado engines that were based on No. 2's design, Nos. 70 and 101, but they didn’t perform as well as No. 2 did" is attributed to source #1, which does not support that statement. The "Early preservation" section states "After a subsequent restoration process was completed in May 1965, No. 2 began pulling the C&LC's 4-mile tourist trains between Lake City and Cadillac", attributed to source #1, which does not support that statement. In the "Career on the Mid-Continent Railway Museum" section, the statements "Lichter also had the engine repainted to resemble its first livery from the Saginaw Timber Company" and "The thorough rebuild on No. 2 took more than 14 years to complete", also attributed to source #2, are not supported by that source. There are enough of these problems that I have stopped performing source checking, and do not doubt that there are serious sourcing issues with this article that should be addressed before it is nominated for GA. As such, I feel that it meets that standards for quick failing, and will not complete the rest of this review.
	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).	The following sources are not reliable sources: [1] Classic Trains: Blog, author discloses close association with subject matter. [2] Steamlocomotive.com: "This site is run by a staff of one part-time person (me)." [5] Railroadmichigan.com: "This is a non-commercial hobby website" [6] Steamlocomotive.info: "Doug Bailey, a steam fan since childhood is the owner and operator of the site" and its vague description of where it got its information for its database. [17] Baltimoreshipspotting.com: "This blog is intended to be the glue by which I put together photos from my Flickr page and video from my YouTube channel." [23],[25] Eastpdxnews.com: Appears to be a blog created by David F. Ashton? Numbers in brackets refer to the reference number as it appears in this version of the article that I am reviewing. In addition, although not a GA criteria for some reason, many of the citation templates can be improved with author and publication data added.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Automated copyvio search only returns hits on the direct quotes included in the article, no other detected copy-paste actions. Close paraphrasing issues not checked in detail before failing GA nomination for other reasons.
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.	Article is stable with no content disputes or edit wars. No unaddressed issues on article talk page.
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.	Two images, both plausibly tagged with valid copyright tags on Commons. No fair-use images, so no non-tree use rationales needed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant to the topic with appropriate and descriptive captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Quickfailing after discovering serious sourcing issues, especially criteria 2a and 2b.

This nomination was not successful. I hope this experience can help with your understanding of the sourcing standards that articles on Wikipedia should meet, as well as other aspects of the manual of style. Good luck with it. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]