Talk:Shipyard Railway/GA1

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

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.
 * ✅ Rephrased.
 * Relocate the sentence in the lead beginning: "The line operated with ..." to be the 3rd sentence in the paragraph, for better flow.

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 ...."
 * change "curved trestle" to "curved trestle bridge" and add wikilink to Trestle bridge, removing the same link from "trestle" in the History section.
 * 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.
 * ❌ Per WP:ENGVAR
 * In the third paragraph under Route, replace "jogged" with "turned".
 * ❌ Per WP:ENGVAR
 * In the third paragraph under Route, replace "jogged" with "turned".

History

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

Rolling stock

 * In the second paragraph, change "refit" to "refitted"
 * In the second paragraph, change "married pairs" to "twin units (also known as married pairs)"
 * ❌ Per ENGVAR
 * ❌ 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)