Talk:Steamtown, U.S.A./GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

• I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this point. By now I have read through the article once. It appears to be comprehensive, well-illustrated and well-referenced (but I've not checked the references yet). So its probably at or near GA-quality.

• I'm now working my way through the sections, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. As such, I will mostly/only highlighting "problems". So if I don't say anything here about a particular section/subsection, that possibly means that I regard it as OK: however, I will provide a summary at the end. Pyrotec (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• History -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - That first paragraph needs at leat one more date. F. Nelson Blount is named, he wrote a book at 17 (OK so far); he acquired Edaville Railroad (when ?) and by 1964 part of his collection was housed at ....." The rest of the paragraph and the following paragraph back-tracks (sorry, not intended as pun) from early 1960s, 1962, later, and then 1964, so I presume it predates those dates, but its not clear when it all started.

for some reason this didn't show up on my watchlist, but I found it anyway. I improved that paragraph. The collection was "housed at North Walpole NH, and called the Monadnock, Steamtown & Northern RR", which I hope is clearer now. Thanks. I almost quit Wikipedia today, but I'm feeling a bit better now.Just tell me what you don't like and I will fix it, no big deal.--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. It will probably take me another day or so: I have five reviews in progress (three On Hold). I'm sorry to hear that you nearly quit, I've reviewed at least one of your nominations before - David Carradine - and it passed (and so will this one). Pyrotec (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• The rest of this section appears to be OK.

• The collection -

...to be continued.Pyrotec (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A well-illustrated, well-referenced transport article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on getting the article up to this standard. Pyrotec (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)