Talk:Texas and Pacific 610

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Texas and Pacific 610 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: October 7, 2024. (Reviewed version).

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Trains: Locomotives Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Texas and Pacific 610/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Someone who likes train writing (talk · contribs) 20:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA criteria! Congratulations to Someone who likes train writing and any other editors who may have worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The A-1 was tested on the T&P's future parent company, the Missouri Pacific (MoPac) what does this mean? Does it mean it was tested on track belonging to MoPac? Clarify As is my usual practice, I've made smaller prose tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any you object to, just let me know. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Pass, well-written in general.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no major issues. The external links are ok - probably not the best sources, but fine for reliability for EL.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No unreferenced passages, generally well cited.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Generally reliable newspaper sources and hobbyist magazines. No obscure web sources that I can see. Hold for spot-check of 5-6 to ensure sources are being quoted accurately / described adequately. No issues found, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None detected. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing of concern, hold for manual spot check. No issues found, pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not able to find anything else of note.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I was concerned it would be overdetailed, but in general it's readable. Is there more detail than I would have put? Probably, but for a railfan there's probably too little and for the general reader it's fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues of neutrality. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues here. Pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I'm not really convinced that the postcard image (File:Southern 610 (postcard).jpg) is in the public domain. If it was first published in "Audio-Visual Designs", do you have a link to the page or scan showing it was published without a copyright notice? The postcard publication wouldn't matter if it came second. Not sure why the discussion below on this topic was removed, but based on that I think it's fine and copyright-free. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Existing images are good, but a little sparse - 1-2 more would be great to have if available. I understand if no other relevant freely licensed images can be found, though.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 talk 14:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Texas and Pacific 610 in 2004

... that after the Texas and Pacific 610 (pictured) locomotive was retired from service in 1950, it was donated to Fort Worth, Texas, publisher Amon G. Carter and became named after philosopher Will Rogers?

Source: Heinecke, Harry (January 28, 1951). "City, Show and T&P Officials Help 'Bed Down' Old 610 in Its Last Stall". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Vol. 17, no. 362. p. 1 – via Newspapers.com.
"T&P Steam Locomotive, Gift to City Will Keep Iron Horse Memories Alive". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Vol. 17, no. 353. January 19, 1951. p. 1 – via Newspapers.com.

Reviewed:
Comment: I honestly only want to know what earning the DYK nomination is like, after successfully nominating two pages the Good Article grade. I just wasn’t sure which fact is the most interesting in No. 610’s page.

Improved to Good Article status by Someone who likes train writing (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Someone who likes train writing (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I think this would be a better hook:

ALT1 ... that after being bought for $1 to save it from scrapping, Texas and Pacific 610 (pictured) was one of three steam locomotives to pull the 1976 American Freedom Train commemorating the United States Bicentennial?

I'm not certain which sources in the article support this, but I'm sure you can provide them, @Someone who likes train writing:. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That actually sounds better. Thank you, @Trainsandotherthings:. Here are a couple of sources that back this fact up.:

Marrs, Jim (February 25, 1976). "Hundreds Due to Greet Engine 610". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. p. 4 – via Newspapers.com.
Boyd, Jim (February 1978). "Tales of a lanky Texan". Railfan. Vol. 2, no. 2. Carstens Publications. p. 31.

Someone who likes train writing (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall:

The article achieved GA status on October 7, and was nominated for DYK on the same day. Length and sourcing are adequate. The article is neutral in tone, and no plagiarism concerns were detected. I have struck ALT0 since the hook is focused on people rather than on the engine. ALT0 could be more interesting if it dropped mention of Forth Worth and Amon G. Carter, and the desciptor of Will Rogers would need to be amended since the short description of his article does not mention that he is a philosopher. ALT1 is a much better hook. It will be interesting to a broad audience. The hook is supported by multiple sentences in separate paragraphs, each are properly cited and verified. Both images used in the article are freely licensed on the Commons. The nominated image is clear at a low resolution, used in the article, and enhances the hook. The QPQ is not required for the first nomination by this nominator. Flibirigit (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]