Talk:Shipyard Railway/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Marshelec (talk · contribs) 23:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I plan to commence a review of this article. Marshelec (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Prose

The prose is to a high standard. I offer the following suggestions for further improvement:

The lead

• In the lead, add "(an urban mass-transit company)" after Key System in the second sentence. When I first read the sentence, I initially guessed wrongly that the Key System might be some kind of technology. While the reader can click the link to learn about the Key System, I suggest that this small addition to the text in the lead is worthwhile.
  •  Done Rephrased.
• Relocate the sentence in the lead beginning: "The line operated with ..." to be the 3rd sentence in the paragraph, for better flow.
  •  Done

Route

• In the Route section, readers may not be familiar with the use of "jogged" in the second paragraph to describe a change in direction of a route. I recommend some alternative, perhaps: "turned left for two blocks...", or "turned west ...."
  •  Done
• change "curved trestle" to "curved trestle bridge" and add wikilink to Trestle bridge, removing the same link from "trestle" in the History section.
  •  Done
• Also in the second paragraph, I accept that "grade crossing" is common terminology in North America. However, there is an article Level crossing, and I recommend this term is used instead.
  •  Not done Per WP:ENGVAR
• In the third paragraph under Route, replace "jogged" with "turned".
  •  Done

History

• Under History, in the third sentence, replace "ran" with "run".
  •  Done
• In the 4th sentence, provide the full expansion of IER, by relocation from the 2nd paragraph.
  •  Done

Rolling stock

• In the second paragraph, change "refit" to "refitted"
  •  Done
• In the second paragraph, change "married pairs" to "twin units (also known as married pairs)"
  •  Not done Per ENGVAR

I will aim to cover other GA review criteria in the next couple of days. Marshelec (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

• No issues found with references that I was able to check. Online citations are from reliable sources.
• No copyright violations identified.

Broad in its coverage

• Good coverage of the topic.

Neutral

• No issues.

Stable

• No issues.

Illustrated

• Images are all relevant, with suitable captions and are tagged with copyright status

This is a Pass. Marshelec (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)