Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Southern Railway's Spencer Shops/1

Southern Railway's Spencer Shops

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Unfortunate, but looks unavoidable at this point. Hog Farm _Talk 15:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is laughably incomplete. The Spencer Shops were in operation from 1896 to at least the 1960s. The article, however, abruptly ends at when the shops first opened and dedicates not a single sentence to their 60+ years of operations. This is ridiculously far from meeting the GA requirement for broad coverage of the subject, and should be delisted unless it is massively expanded from what it is now. The primary source used for this article, [1], gives no indication is is a reliable source, and I have noticed several instances of close paraphrasing of the source in this article's prose. This article should be delisted, it needs to be completely rewritten and massively expanded before we can say it meets the GA criteria. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine if Cedar Hill Yard (my own FA, but I've picked it as it's one of the two existing FAs on a railroad facility, the other being Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works) ended after the "The yard is expanded, 1917 to 1920" section. See how much more material would be missing? I hope that gives an idea of the extent to which this article is incomplete and does not give its subject an encyclopedic treatment, or even come close to doing so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the main web source being used, I found the site index which notes; "Copyright © 2007 GoRowan.com All rights reserved and protected. DanTana Enterprises, LTD. Rowan County Information OnLine ® ... We are not the EDC or the Chamber or the Visitor Center. We are better and do it for free!!" This is actually discouraging, because if it was the old website of the county chamber of commerce or an official visitor/tourism center I'd lean towards reliable. This indicates this is a private project. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: I have added some information information on the shops' later history. Not enough, but it's a start. I've also found the Arcadia book had a different opening date for the shops than the web source, which is not encouraging. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The page is lacking the detail required from a GA. There are plenty of book based sources that can be used to build it back up again. Gusfriend (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I agree with TAOT that "this article is laughably incomplete", but for a much different reason. This property is on the National Register of Historic Places, yet there is no description of either the complex's architecture or the layout of its component buildings. I don't think we need an example to see how absurd this is, but I would expect, at the very minimum, a paragraph on the architecture/layout of the shops. This alone should have been a quick fail under WP:GACR criterion 3a, not to mention the sourcing and close paraphrasing issues mentioned above. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2022 (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.