Jump to content

Talk:Uinta Basin Rail

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Uinta Basin Rail/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vincent60030 (talk · contribs) 10:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take up this one. I'll be back soon no worries. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comments:

  • No copyvios, with an acceptable range of quotes
  • The images are fine, but I think there should be one picture about the Uintah Railway if possible, or if there is like an area to be served by the railway could be depicted too
    • Reply:The Environmental Impact statement contains some low resolution pictures of the location of the tunnel portals, wetlands that may be disrupted, etc. I debated including them, but I'm not sure of the document status. The EIS itself would be in the public domain as it is published by a federal government agency. However, I don't know about the photos, figures, etc. that were submitted to the federal government and included in the report. Dave (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have found the following images on Flickr that could be of use, they are all currently set to full copyright, I have emailed the authors to ask if they would consider a cc license:
      • [1] - Taken at the mountain pass that would be bypassed by the biggest of the tunnels
      • [2] - This is near the portal for the first tunnel, and where 2 of the horseshoe curves to gain elevation would be
      • [3] Oil wells in Indian Canyon
      • [4] The abandoned power plant at the junction of US-191 and US-6 and not far from where this rail line would connect to the central corridor
    • If they grant the license change I'll add to the article. Dave (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm in a similar position. I had hoped to review two articles in the pile before you finished this review and I haven't reviewed one yet.Dave (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • Reference 2 does not cite the project as the largest new, it is only the first ever since the 70s.
The reference says "first greenfield railroad". I was concerned that "greenfield/brownfield" is an industrial term that may not be understood by a general reader, so I attempted to capture the same spirit but without the word greenfield. I welcome any suggestions for better wording, or if you disagree that greenfield is an industry term, lets discuss. I did find that Wikipedia does have an article that discusses greenfield/brownfield Greenfield project is probably the proper article, but Greenfield land explains the concept better, so maybe keep the original wording but wikilink? Dave (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Moabdave: I think you misunderstood the issue here. The issue is that the reference does not cite the statement that it is the largest, not about the greenfield brownfield term. Sure I do not mind that you change the term greenfield to something else. I’ll give another look when I am available again. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 03:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Past efforts

[edit]
  • Perhaps it would be good to include a mini description about the Uintah Railway since it would generally interest readers how it is slightly related to this one. Optional
I can do this. I have the book for source 6. It has one chapter dedicated to this rail line. I've debated expanding the Uintah Railway article using a summary of this chapter. I'll look into it. Dave (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read the source and they had an interesting, but trivial detail about the Uintah Railray. I added it to both articles. It may or may not be appropriate for this article (I'll let you decide that) but I had fun reading and writing about it, so we'll see. Dave (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a page number for journal references 8, 9, and 10?
I don't believe so. I don't have access to these journals. Long story short, as originally written these statements were sourced to the site utahrails.net. I asked someone else's opinion and they thought I relied too much on that source, and had access to the journals and changed the references. If you'd like I can add the utahrails.net references as backup sources. The concern is utahrails.net is a WP:SPS. If anybody takes the time to read it would see the author is an expert on the subject. As such I think I could defend it's reliability. Still, it would come up at a FAC review, should the article progress that far.Dave (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Current effort

[edit]
  • I think it may be better to break up this section into two, with the second part starting from in 2019. Do let me know your thoughts on this.
Agreed. Done. Dave (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've addressed all issues above, except for the optional expansion of the paragraph on Uintah Railway. I will do it, just need some time. It's optional anyways ;) Dave (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will hopefully take another look when I have the capacity as I still am not able to haha. Have to settle all of my deadlines on assignments. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 08:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done with that optional part. ;) Dave (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vincent60030: I know you're busy but where are we at with this? Dave (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Moabdave: Apologies again for the very very late response. Hmm there has been an update to the article. Will there be further updates to this news? I will go ahead and finalise it. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 13:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the aforementioned concern of stability, it should be good to move on :D Hope to hear from you soon. Great work! VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 14:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that concerned. There will be minor updates as either the lawsuit or construction proceeds. But I think the article will be overall stable until the line is open. Obviously the article will need a major overhaul once the line is open, but that's unavoidable, and frankly, based on past experience still a few years away. Dave (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! going to happily pass this. Congratulations ya VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 SL93 (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Map of the preferred route under consideration
Map of the preferred route under consideration
  • ... that some of the proposed routes for the current effort to build a Uinta Basin Rail line are based on routes surveyed over 100 years ago? Page 4 of source number 20 in the article (part of the Environmental Impact Statement) lists that one of the shortlisted alternatives is based on a "historical survey" done by the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad. Sources 9 and 13, among others, confirm these routes were surveyed between 1902 and 1920.

Improved to Good Article status by Moabdave (talk). Self-nominated at 02:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Everything looks good here. Krakkos (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uinta_Basin_Rail&oldid=1207481692"