Talk:Railway post office/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2005, so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant.Pyrotec (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This article is wide-ranging, well-illustrated and is generally complaint with WP:WIAGA, but it is deficient is some areas: mostly WP:verify.

I will consider the article section by section, leaving the WP:lead until last.Pyrotec (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History -

The first five paragraphs appear to be compliant.
The last two paragraphs, however, lack WP:verification.

Standardization -

Only the first half of the fourth paragraph appears to be verifiable via an in-line citation. Does ref 12 cover the whole of this paragraph?

Cancellation stamps -

These paragraph are unreferenced.

Decline and withdrawal -

This section is mostly unreferenced.

Preservation -

Appears to be OK.

WP:Lead -

I'm currently expanding this: at present it acts as an introduction, but it does not adequately summarise the main points of the article.
The follow statements do not appear in the body of the article and are not verifiable. If they are to remain here, an in-line citation is needed:

"From the middle of the 19th century, many American railroads earned substantial revenues through contracts with the Post Office to carry mail aboard high-speed passenger trains"; and
"In fact, a number of companies maintained passenger routes where the financial losses from moving people were more than offset by transporting the mail."

I'm putting this article review On Hold, to allow these points to be addressed. A decision will then be made whether to maintain or withdraw the GA-status of this article. Pyrotec (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As none of these points have been addressed I'm delisting this article. Once they have been addressed, the article can of course be re-submitted to WP:GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]