Talk:Uinta Basin Rail/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vincent60030 (talk · contribs) 10:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll take up this one. I'll be back soon no worries. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
General comments:
- No copyvios, with an acceptable range of quotes
- The images are fine, but I think there should be one picture about the Uintah Railway if possible, or if there is like an area to be served by the railway could be depicted too
- Reply:The Environmental Impact statement contains some low resolution pictures of the location of the tunnel portals, wetlands that may be disrupted, etc. I debated including them, but I'm not sure of the document status. The EIS itself would be in the public domain as it is published by a federal government agency. However, I don't know about the photos, figures, etc. that were submitted to the federal government and included in the report. Dave (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have found the following images on Flickr that could be of use, they are all currently set to full copyright, I have emailed the authors to ask if they would consider a cc license:
- [1] - Taken at the mountain pass that would be bypassed by the biggest of the tunnels
- [2] - This is near the portal for the first tunnel, and where 2 of the horseshoe curves to gain elevation would be
- [3] Oil wells in Indian Canyon
- [4] The abandoned power plant at the junction of US-191 and US-6 and not far from where this rail line would connect to the central corridor
- If they grant the license change I'll add to the article. Dave (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- I apologise for my punctuality on this as I am really full of hands. Really sorry for the inconvenience. Hopefully I'll come back around next Saturday as exam week is on this week. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 15:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- No worries. I'm in a similar position. I had hoped to review two articles in the pile before you finished this review and I haven't reviewed one yet.Dave (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Lead
[edit]- Reference 2 does not cite the project as the largest new, it is only the first ever since the 70s.
- The reference says "first greenfield railroad". I was concerned that "greenfield/brownfield" is an industrial term that may not be understood by a general reader, so I attempted to capture the same spirit but without the word greenfield. I welcome any suggestions for better wording, or if you disagree that greenfield is an industry term, lets discuss. I did find that Wikipedia does have an article that discusses greenfield/brownfield Greenfield project is probably the proper article, but Greenfield land explains the concept better, so maybe keep the original wording but wikilink? Dave (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Moabdave: I think you misunderstood the issue here. The issue is that the reference does not cite the statement that it is the largest, not about the greenfield brownfield term. Sure I do not mind that you change the term greenfield to something else. I’ll give another look when I am available again. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 03:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- The reference says "first greenfield railroad". I was concerned that "greenfield/brownfield" is an industrial term that may not be understood by a general reader, so I attempted to capture the same spirit but without the word greenfield. I welcome any suggestions for better wording, or if you disagree that greenfield is an industry term, lets discuss. I did find that Wikipedia does have an article that discusses greenfield/brownfield Greenfield project is probably the proper article, but Greenfield land explains the concept better, so maybe keep the original wording but wikilink? Dave (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Past efforts
[edit]- Perhaps it would be good to include a mini description about the Uintah Railway since it would generally interest readers how it is slightly related to this one. Optional
- I can do this. I have the book for source 6. It has one chapter dedicated to this rail line. I've debated expanding the Uintah Railway article using a summary of this chapter. I'll look into it. Dave (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I re-read the source and they had an interesting, but trivial detail about the Uintah Railray. I added it to both articles. It may or may not be appropriate for this article (I'll let you decide that) but I had fun reading and writing about it, so we'll see. Dave (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Is there a page number for journal references 8, 9, and 10?
- I don't believe so. I don't have access to these journals. Long story short, as originally written these statements were sourced to the site utahrails.net. I asked someone else's opinion and they thought I relied too much on that source, and had access to the journals and changed the references. If you'd like I can add the utahrails.net references as backup sources. The concern is utahrails.net is a WP:SPS. If anybody takes the time to read it would see the author is an expert on the subject. As such I think I could defend it's reliability. Still, it would come up at a FAC review, should the article progress that far.Dave (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Current effort
[edit]- I think it may be better to break up this section into two, with the second part starting from in 2019. Do let me know your thoughts on this.
- Agreed. Done. Dave (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- I believe I've addressed all issues above, except for the optional expansion of the paragraph on Uintah Railway. I will do it, just need some time. It's optional anyways ;) Dave (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, I will hopefully take another look when I have the capacity as I still am not able to haha. Have to settle all of my deadlines on assignments. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 08:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
- Done with that optional part. ;) Dave (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Vincent60030: I know you're busy but where are we at with this? Dave (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Moabdave: Apologies again for the very very late response. Hmm there has been an update to the article. Will there be further updates to this news? I will go ahead and finalise it. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 13:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Other than the aforementioned concern of stability, it should be good to move on :D Hope to hear from you soon. Great work! VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 14:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not that concerned. There will be minor updates as either the lawsuit or construction proceeds. But I think the article will be overall stable until the line is open. Obviously the article will need a major overhaul once the line is open, but that's unavoidable, and frankly, based on past experience still a few years away. Dave (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sure thing! going to happily pass this. Congratulations ya VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not that concerned. There will be minor updates as either the lawsuit or construction proceeds. But I think the article will be overall stable until the line is open. Obviously the article will need a major overhaul once the line is open, but that's unavoidable, and frankly, based on past experience still a few years away. Dave (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Vincent60030: I know you're busy but where are we at with this? Dave (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Done with that optional part. ;) Dave (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, I will hopefully take another look when I have the capacity as I still am not able to haha. Have to settle all of my deadlines on assignments. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 08:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)