Norfolk and Western 611 has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 12, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Don't have time to do a full review right now, but I saw this on article alerts and skimmed it. I suggest breaking up the history section into several top-level sections, due to its length. At minimum, revenue service can be a top-level section, along with excursion service. The article is generally in very good shape though, and I expect it will pass GAN easily. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 18:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to know that if there are any plans for 611 to go back home to Roanoke Virginia? 70.188.111.54 ( talk) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Trains2050 ( talk · contribs) 05:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
Trains2050 ( talk) 08:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The result was: rejected by
Bruxton (
talk)
23:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Created by 611fan2001 ( talk). Self-nominated at 18:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Norfolk and Western 611; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. General eligibility:
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: @ 611fan2001: First, let me say that you did a great job improving this to Good Article status. As an avid railfan myself, I can appreciate how hard it is to find sources for individual locomotives, let alone improving articles about individual locomotives to GA status. That said, unfortunately, you nominated this article far too late for it to be eligible for a DYK appearance. It was improved to GA status on March 12, over two months ago, and should have been nominated shortly afterward (before March 19 at the latest). Furthermore, even if this were eligible, I'm sure a more specific hook could have been proposed from the details in the article. For future nominations, please note that wording like "the ingenuity and pinnacle of steam locomotive technology" is not likely to be approved, since it's extremely vague and sounds almost like marketing-speak. Epicgenius ( talk) 18:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@ 611fan2001, why remove mention of the 1956 train wreck from the body of the article? Yes, as you mention, there is a detailed description of the wreck near the bottom of the article. That is why the description in the body was brief. But it was also important. The wreck is historically important, as the last country's major steam-powered revenue passenger train wreck. It is also why No. 611 has survived into its eighth decade, why it was not scrapped after less than a decade's service, and indeed why all of this was possible:
Finally, it makes little sense to refer to the wreck offhandedly ("...thanks to the extensive overhaul that followed its accident in early 1956"); service to the reader, at least, demands some earlier mention. Particularly in view of the myriad of less-important detail, can you explain why you believe this crucial event in No. 611's existence should be relegated to a bullet point in a list? PRRfan ( talk) 17:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I see the link in the intro. But I think readers would be well-served by links to Cedar train wreck in the History (more than one thousand words after the intro) and Accidents sections (more than 5,000 words after that). This is explicitly permitted by MOS:REPEATLINK ("Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as...at the first occurrence in a section"). PRRfan ( talk) 19:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Norfolk and Western 611 has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 12, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Don't have time to do a full review right now, but I saw this on article alerts and skimmed it. I suggest breaking up the history section into several top-level sections, due to its length. At minimum, revenue service can be a top-level section, along with excursion service. The article is generally in very good shape though, and I expect it will pass GAN easily. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 18:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to know that if there are any plans for 611 to go back home to Roanoke Virginia? 70.188.111.54 ( talk) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Trains2050 ( talk · contribs) 05:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
(Criteria marked are unassessed)
Trains2050 ( talk) 08:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The result was: rejected by
Bruxton (
talk)
23:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Created by 611fan2001 ( talk). Self-nominated at 18:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Norfolk and Western 611; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. General eligibility:
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: @ 611fan2001: First, let me say that you did a great job improving this to Good Article status. As an avid railfan myself, I can appreciate how hard it is to find sources for individual locomotives, let alone improving articles about individual locomotives to GA status. That said, unfortunately, you nominated this article far too late for it to be eligible for a DYK appearance. It was improved to GA status on March 12, over two months ago, and should have been nominated shortly afterward (before March 19 at the latest). Furthermore, even if this were eligible, I'm sure a more specific hook could have been proposed from the details in the article. For future nominations, please note that wording like "the ingenuity and pinnacle of steam locomotive technology" is not likely to be approved, since it's extremely vague and sounds almost like marketing-speak. Epicgenius ( talk) 18:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@ 611fan2001, why remove mention of the 1956 train wreck from the body of the article? Yes, as you mention, there is a detailed description of the wreck near the bottom of the article. That is why the description in the body was brief. But it was also important. The wreck is historically important, as the last country's major steam-powered revenue passenger train wreck. It is also why No. 611 has survived into its eighth decade, why it was not scrapped after less than a decade's service, and indeed why all of this was possible:
Finally, it makes little sense to refer to the wreck offhandedly ("...thanks to the extensive overhaul that followed its accident in early 1956"); service to the reader, at least, demands some earlier mention. Particularly in view of the myriad of less-important detail, can you explain why you believe this crucial event in No. 611's existence should be relegated to a bullet point in a list? PRRfan ( talk) 17:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I see the link in the intro. But I think readers would be well-served by links to Cedar train wreck in the History (more than one thousand words after the intro) and Accidents sections (more than 5,000 words after that). This is explicitly permitted by MOS:REPEATLINK ("Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as...at the first occurrence in a section"). PRRfan ( talk) 19:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)