Jump to content

Talk:Pennsylvania Railroad 4876

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:PRR 4876)
Former good articlePennsylvania Railroad 4876 was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 24, 2011Good article nomineeListed
April 26, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:PRR 4876/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SMasters (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    There were some very minor punctuation and other language issues, but I have fixed them. Aside from those, the article is well written and complies to WP:MOS requirements.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Article is properly referenced with reliable sources and has no original research.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Article covers major aspects and is focused.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Article complies to WP:NPOV.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Article is stable.
  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):
    Pictures are properly tagged and has a suitable caption.
  7. Overall: This is a short but concise article on the subject, well researched and written. I am confident that it meets all the requirements for a GA, and am happy to pass it. Well done. – SMasters (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass/Fail:

Smithsonian

[edit]

In the article titled 'Of GG1's, NJ Transit, Boeing 707's, and the media', author Don Wood said she was slated for the Smithsonian (Ultimately, of course, the 4876 ultimately never made it theren). This appeared on page 66 in the August 1984 issue of Trains Magazine, published by Kalmbach Publishing. Not sure how the whole Wikipedia reference thing works with the appropriate codes and such, so hopefully someone will toss in the appropriate reference for me since it's an interesting facet of her history that she nearly made it to the most important museum in this country (As did an example of the Alco PA, which also didn't quite make it there). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.6.240 (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thanks! ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 16:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

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) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delist. Seven days have passed with no fixes or interest expressed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 GA, with a drive-by pass for a review. Two citation needed tags for large portions of paragraphs lacking citations, and an additional paragraph also lacking sourcing. I've identified two more recent news articles that discuss the locomotive in detail which are not cited and should be considered [1] [2]. Overall, I think this article is salvageable, but it does need some work. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.