Talk:EMD F40PH/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

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

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:
 * 1) 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&mdash;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)
 * Thanks for that fix. Shearonink (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * The site in question is dead; I replaced it with an equivalent link. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * The site in question is dead; I replaced it with an equivalent link. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)