Talk:Pennsylvanian (train)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 11:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's lead fails to adequately summarise the contents. I see a lot of mention of travel times and suburb passing throughs, but not much about history or equipment?
"Sample consist" What is this?
The second lead paragraph needs to be moved into the body

Please fix the above points, so that the article is GA compliant. Thank you. ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 08:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a paragraph to the lede and spun off a new Finance section to address 1 and 3. As to 2, a train's consist is its equipment on a given day and time. The sample consist reinforces the equipment section with an actual example of the Pennsylvanians' equipment on that day. Best. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More review[edit]

"1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in)" The measurements are the other way around every other time in the article? ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 06:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you ref some of the unreffed stuff in the infobox please? ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 06:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add one sentence to the lead discussing the "finances" section of the article? ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 06:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ★★King∽~Retrolord★★ 06:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer[edit]

Retrolord has been indefinitely blocked, but I can finish this one up. I should have my comments posted in the next 3-7 days; sorry for the delay in your review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read this through and made a few minor tweaks; feel free to revert any you disagree with. This is a solid, well-written article that's clearly ripe for promotion. I also made the slightly larger change of removing the "Finances" header to make this material a part of "history". It's not out of place there, and avoids the sort of very short subsection discouraged by WP:LAYOUT. Again, feel free to revert and we can discuss.

All else looks good so far. Now I'll go over the checklist and do a few spotchecks, but I suspect this is ready to promote. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2013 (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.	Prose is strong; spotchecks show no signs of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
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.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA