Wikipedia:Featured article review/John Bull (locomotive)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 10:28, 21 August 2008.

John Bull (locomotive)

 * Notified Trains Portal, Trains Project, and User Slambo.

This article was promoted to FA status in December 2004 and has not been reviewed. The article may have met the FA criteria back then, but it doesn't meet the current criteria. Criterion 1(c) seems to be the biggest problem for this article. There has been a "nofootnotes" tag on it since May. Halgin (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been meaning to get back to this to add footnotes for some time. I guess now is the time to get to it.  B-)  Slambo (Speak)  10:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm working on this now. I couldn't get to it over the weekend as it was my wedding anniversary, but I'll be putting some time into this during the week.  Slambo (Speak)  11:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Much of the early history is now footnoted to multiple independent references. Work has slowed now because I'm looking for my copies of the books in my collection about this locomotive.  I found a few New York Times articles about the 1931 and 1981 operation events, but they're behind an archive fee so I haven't added them yet. Slambo (Speak)  16:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I found my copy of the book by John White and added the remaining footnotes to the main text. I'm still looking through the books in my personal library as well as at books available online and at my local city library for more reference material (and that's not mentioning the various magazines and historical journals that I have yet to look at again), so there may be more footnotes still yet to come.  But, I think it should satisfy now.  Slambo (Speak)  02:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no response either here, on the article talk page or on my talk page, I've requested that the review nominator return to review the changes. Slambo (Speak)  22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the first article I have asked for a review of. Thanks for the Message on my talk page. I was not sure if you were done. I will review the changes. Can you drop some information on the New York Times articles.  If provide the information to support the statement in the summary or title you should add them.  If not maybe if we can find another source. If someone else wants to review it also that would be good. Halgin (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I added some “citation needed” in some places. Maybe some of the technical information in the Intro box should be referenced also. I don’t have access to the References books, so I can’t check them.  I assume that the information above them is supported.  I have not checked the one online book.  The article says that in 1939” It was then placed in somewhat permanent display back in the East Hall where it remained for the next 25 years.” But then its states “make its final public appearance outside the Smithsonian for another 39 years.”  When was the Century of Progress exhibition in Chicago 1933–1934 or 1939? The article states both. Halgin (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, I'll get onto those today. For the sections about the locomotive's museum displays, the information is all in John White's book (I have a copy in my collection).  1939 appears next to the phrase "Century of Progress" on page 46, but 1939 refers to the New York World's Fair.  I've fixed it in the article (good catch). Slambo (Speak)  11:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The flagged statements are all referenced, and I also found and fixed an incorrect reference URL. I plan to further address your concerns later today.  Slambo (Speak)  11:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My concerns about the references have been addressed. Halgin (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Images
 * Image:John Bull.jpg: missing source and author.
 * Image:John Bull at the Columbian Exposition-2.jpg: missing source and author.
 * Image:John Bull at the Smithsonian, 1920.jpg: See http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/print/res/100_hory.html and the media file at the Library of Congress: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/thc.5a48124 "Publication may be restricted." DrKiernan (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Other experienced editors have helped to list reliable sources and proper license tags for all three images. As all three were published in the United States before 1923, they fall into the public domain. Slambo (Speak)  10:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still concerned over Image:John Bull at the Smithsonian, 1920.jpg, as the Library of Congress says it could have been taken "ca. 1950", if that's the case the US-1923 tag would not apply. DrKiernan (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it said 1920 when I added it to the article. However, even if it was later,  asserts "The photographs Theodor Horydczak made for his own use or for the government are in the public domain."  That page also says that any client information on work-for-hire images would be stored in the catalog records with the image.  I don't see anything obvious on  or the associated MARC record that would indicate that this would have been a work-for-hire (there is no lot number or client name listed in either location).  Slambo (Speak)  15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's reasonable. Thanks for checking. DrKiernan (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Close. My and the nominator's comments appear to have been addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.