Talk:North Coast Hiawatha/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 17:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackensen, I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks again for your work on it, Khazar2 (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, on my first pass, this looks good. It appears to cover the main aspects, the prose is fine, and it's generally well-sourced.

The only source issue I see right off is with the four pictures used as sources. This seems to me to be moving into original research. I trust you that you can correctly identify the types of cars in the pictures, but these pictures aren't enough for a generalization like "In the early 1970s a typical train might feature as many as four dome cars pulled by ex-Milwaukee Road EMD E9s" or "The train was one of many routes to receive the new EMD SDP40F, which worked the route between 1974–1977, although older EMD E8 and EMD E9s continued to be used". I also don't know how much editorial oversight a site like RailPictures.Net does to make sure the correct train is being photographed on the correct day.

Do you have sources that discuss the train's consist in prose? I'd suggest all material that relies on photographs should be deleted.

Now I'll take a look again at the previous, withdrawn review and see if there's anything I agree with that I'm missing so far. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made one more tweak based on the previous review. By the way, feel free to revert any of the tweaks I've made directly to the article that you might disagree with. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens Sanders does discuss consist and equipment in sufficient detail, so I've rewritten using him as the reference. I don't think I had access to Sanders when I wrote that originally, and you're absolutely right that we have to do better. Mackensen (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, terrific. That resolves that, then; thanks for the quick response. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

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.	Copyvio detector and spotchecks show no evidence 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).	~~See 2c~~
	2c. it contains no original research.	~~The sourcing in the "Equipment" section may verge on 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