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).

A fact from Texas and Pacific 610 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 November 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Texas and Pacific 610 was once bought for $1?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Texas and Pacific 610.

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
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

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.

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
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.

1986 storage

I'm pretty sure that 610 spent some of 1986 stored at the Southern steam shop in Birmingham. While 1218 was being restored there was another large engine on the far side of the shop, which my memory says was 610. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:C7C0:5D6:42A4:E4A1:A268 (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That must have been Chesapeake and Ohio 2716 you were thinking of. According to sources I found on Newspapers.com, most of which date back to 1982, 1984 and 1986, No. 610 was stored at the Quartermaster Depot in Fort Worth. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Landlocked

"In June 1969, local machine shop owner David F. Pearson learned that No. 610 was going to be landlocked, and he also feared the locomotive would be scrapped." I'm not finding any dictionary definitions of landlocked in this manner. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012 Right before that, the page says "…in doing so, they were to rip up a portion of the spur line that connected No. 610's display site to the National Rail Network." That’s how landlocking a railway locomotive works. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]