Wikipedia:Peer review/Hi-Level/archive1

Hi-Level
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)


 * 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!
 * 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)
 * Thank you kindly, I'll do that. Best, Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To be neturaller and to fix some errors, these are currently problems. 333-blue 23:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which are being handled in the GA nomination; not sure why you're cross-posting here. Mackensen (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a peer review, though. 333-blue 08:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, which was a precursor to the GA nomination and concluded a month ago. Mackensen (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is netural enough to be a GA, but not for a FA, though. 333-blue 05:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)