Talk:EMD F40PH/GA1

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Shearonink in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 07:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    The URL for External link/Specification Sheet seems to be malformed. Everything else looks fine. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for that fix. Shearonink (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
    No copyright violations found with the copyvio tool/Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
    Factual, straightforward article. Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
    Very stable, no edit-wars. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
    I didn't realize that they could all look so different. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    The external link needs to be fixed. Everything else seems to be good to go, will be doing a few more proofreading/deep-readthroughs to make sure I haven't missed anything. Shearonink (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
    The site in question is dead; I replaced it with an equivalent link. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
    I honestly couldn't find much wrong with this article. It's a straightforward article about a mechanical subject, the references are all nice and clean, the prose is easy-to-understand, the images are appropriate, the image-permissions are good. And I love the photos of this locomotive - didn't realize when I started that they would be so familiar-looking to me, the Wikilinking is thoughtful...nicely-done. I know there are possible improvements going forward - keeping the article up-to-date as the locomotives age out of active use, and so on. Congratulations, it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply