Talk:Walt Disney World Railroad/GA1

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.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am doing a GA Review for this article. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 04:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Sticks to the well-sourced facts.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The layout of the tables needs to be adjusted - the notes are getting mashed up thinly on the right side, making them hard to read. I am unsure how the mashing can be corrected but I think the Notes convert important information, it would be nice to be able to read them more easily.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Nice to see an article about a WDW attraction that doesn't throw in extraneous trivia.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
The images are all very well-done, they illustrate the text without overwhelming it. I especially like the use of the "Walt Disney Railroad Map/template"

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
~~This review is on hold until the table can be adjusted and pending additional read-throughs of the text.~~

Congrats, it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney World Railroad good article status/rolling stock table

I adjusted the rolling stock table so that the notes column is fixed to 20% of the table's width. Let me know how it looks on your end. Jackdude101 (Talk) 01:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is much better, but the text is still sort of stacked-up. Would is be possible to perhaps delete one of the columns - maybe the "in service" one - to buy more space for the text in that right column? Also, why does the Walter E Disney locomotive have no "Notes"? Shearonink (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of the "In service" column. This is actually a good long-term change, as it will decrease the urge by amateur editors to constantly update this criteria whenever they hear new rumors from blogs and forums on which locomotives are working and not working (it's almost impossible to get up-to-date info like this from formal publications and Disney pretty much never gives out these kinds of details). I increased the notes column width from 20% to 25%, as well. Also, the reason why there are no notes for the No. 1 locomotive is because I did not come across anything of note about it specifically while doing my research. Jackdude101 (Talk) 02:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did one other change to the table: I combined the "Builder" and "Builder number" columns into one column. It's mentioned more than once in the article that all of the WDWRR's locomotives were built by Baldwin Locomotive Works anyway. Jackdude101 (Talk) 03:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jackdude101 I know this is Huffington Post but it mentions that the Broggie & Walt ran together in Mexico for 40 years and are still running together. "These two locomotives were built side by side in 1925 by Baldwin Locomotive works for Ferrocarriles Unidos de Yucatan.They worked side by side in Mexico for 40 years, and today they still run on the same tracks together."

On Page 331 of Michael Broggie's book, he says that the Walter E. Disney" is the tallest of the locomotives at 11ft/11 inches.
On Page 322, (and this is alluded to in the article) Engine #1 & #3 are identical twins under the different paint jobs.

Maybe those bits could fill out the Notes section for #1. Shearonink (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A note for locomotive No. 1 has been added to the table. It's also already mentioned that the No. 1 and No. 3 are similar in the No. 3 note. Jackdude101 (Talk) 04:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source that noted the "Walter E. Disney" is out-of-service and shipped off somewhere for an extensive overhaul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.92.254 (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I alluded to this above. It's very unlikely that we are going to find a quality source to confirm that, given that Disney is super-secretive about this sort of thing. Disney also makes all of the people with whom they do business sign all kinds of confidentiality agreements so that they cannot reveal any of the work they are doing for them. Jackdude101 (Talk) 02:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.