Talk:Steamtown, U.S.A./GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this point. By now I have read through the article once. It appears to be comprehensive, well-illustrated and well-referenced (but I've not checked the references yet). So its probably at or near GA-quality.


 * I'm now working my way through the sections, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. As such, I will mostly/only highlighting "problems". So if I don't say anything here about a particular section/subsection, that possibly means that I regard it as OK: however, I will provide a summary at the end. Pyrotec (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * History -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) - That first paragraph needs at leat one more date. F. Nelson Blount is named, he wrote a book at 17 (OK so far); he acquired Edaville Railroad (when ?) and by 1964 part of his collection was housed at ....." The rest of the paragraph and the following paragraph back-tracks (sorry, not intended as pun) from early 1960s, 1962, later, and then 1964, so I presume it predates those dates, but its not clear when it all started.
 * for some reason this didn't show up on my watchlist, but I found it anyway. I improved that paragraph.  The collection was "housed at North Walpole NH, and called the Monadnock, Steamtown & Northern RR", which I hope is clearer now. Thanks.  I almost quit Wikipedia today, but I'm feeling a bit better now.Just tell me what you don't like and I will fix it, no big deal.--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It will probably take me another day or so: I have five reviews in progress (three On Hold). I'm sorry to hear that you nearly quit, I've reviewed at least one of your nominations before - David Carradine - and it passed (and so will this one). Pyrotec (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The rest of this section appears to be OK.

...to be continued.Pyrotec (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The collection -

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on getting the article up to this standard. Pyrotec (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)