Talk:Texas and Pacific 610/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Someone who likes train writing (talk · contribs) 20:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This article now meets the GA criteria! Congratulations to Someone who likes train writing and any other editors who may have worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

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.	The A-1 was tested on the T&P's future parent company, the Missouri Pacific (MoPac) what does this mean? Does it mean it was tested on track belonging to MoPac? Clarify As is my usual practice, I've made smaller prose tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any you object to, just let me know. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC) Pass, well-written in general.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no major issues. The external links are ok - probably not the best sources, but fine for reliability for EL.
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.	No unreferenced passages, generally well cited.
	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).	Generally reliable newspaper sources and hobbyist magazines. No obscure web sources that I can see. Hold for spot-check of 5-6 to ensure sources are being quoted accurately / described adequately. No issues found, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None detected. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing of concern, hold for manual spot check. No issues found, pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not able to find anything else of note.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I was concerned it would be overdetailed, but in general it's readable. Is there more detail than I would have put? Probably, but for a railfan there's probably too little and for the general reader it's fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues of neutrality. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues here. Pass.
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.	I'm not really convinced that the postcard image (File:Southern 610 (postcard).jpg) is in the public domain. If it was first published in "Audio-Visual Designs", do you have a link to the page or scan showing it was published without a copyright notice? The postcard publication wouldn't matter if it came second. Not sure why the discussion below on this topic was removed, but based on that I think it's fine and copyright-free. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Existing images are good, but a little sparse - 1-2 more would be great to have if available. I understand if no other relevant freely licensed images can be found, though.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.