Talk:Altoona and Beech Creek Railroad/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The stations section is really short, and looks kind of choppy and like it was added on as an afterthought. Is there anything that can be added?

     I have very little information about the intermediate stations, which were probably flagstops—not even the mileages where they were located. I've converted them to a table and added a few notes.

   • In the lead you say "Originally developed to develop coal mines". Could "developed to develop" be worded a little differently?

     Check.

   • In the Extension and legal battle section you say "and allowed Patterson to issue himself 600 additional shares of stock, which, however he did not pay on." Should this be "he did not pay for"? Also, was he given permission to not pay for the shares, or did he just not do it?

     Check. He was never given permission; apparently everyone just overlooked it.

   • Same section you say "Shellenberger and his fellow bondholders had had good reason to grab for the railroad." "good reason to grab for" is rather unencyclopedic; could this be reworded?

     Check.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • The Adams ref needs a publisher and an ISBN (if one is available).

     No ISBN. It's self-published, although Dick Adams was an accepted authority in the railroad field, so its reliability should not be a problem. I've added that it was published by him in Victor, NY.

   • The end of the first paragraph and all of the second paragraph of the Conversion and abandonment section need to be referenced.

     Check.

   • The end of the Passenger and freight equipment subsection needs a ref.

     Check.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • As a really nitpicky thing, it would be great to have a background to the map that shows where the line was in relation to other landmarks (major cities, roads, county/state lines, etc. This isn't something that really even matters to the GA, just something that would be nice to see when the article is being improved in the future. I see that there is a topographic map farther down the article, but it's a little hard to read. If the lead image could have just a few more lines/dots added to it, it would be great...easy to read and imparting quite a bit of information.

     I've added the county line between Blair and Cambria Cos., the road through Juniata Gap, and the PRR main line through Altoona. I hope that helps.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A few prose issues and referencing things, but overall a nice article, so I am placing it on hold. Drop me a note here or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started working on this, see above. Choess (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed everything that I can; the stations are the only real weak point at the moment. Choess (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me. The table looks better for the stations, and adds a little more bulk to the section. I especially like the map, as it gives more detail. As everything appears to be taken care of, I'm going to pass this article to GA status. Nice work. Dana boomer (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks for your time and care. Choess (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)