Wikipedia:Peer review/Hi-Level/archive1

Hi-Level

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it's expanded to the point where I'm thinking about good article status, but the article has been a one-person effort and I'd appreciate thorough review from a third party. I've tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to avoid burdening the article with railfan jargon.

Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Direct nomination I've reviewed your request and I think it would be suitable for direct nomination. I cannot see any issues that couldn't be ironed out during the nomination process. Sorry for how long you've had to wait for this. Good luck!

Always nice to read a page about trains :). I think this article has a good chance of meeting the good article criteria and would benefit from a nomination directly there. Sorry for the long wait, there are only a few of us at PR. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LT910001: Thank you kindly, I'll do that. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be neturaller and to fix some errors, these are currently problems. 333 -blue 23:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which are being handled in the GA nomination; not sure why you're cross-posting here. Mackensen (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a peer review, though. 333 -blue 08:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which was a precursor to the GA nomination and concluded a month ago. Mackensen (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is netural enough to be a GA, but not for a FA, though. 333 -blue 05:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]