Talk:Budd–Michelin rubber-tired rail cars/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 14:01, 6 May 2016 (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.	Well-written prose. I see no issues with it.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes. Sections are appropriate. Lead adequately summarizes the article. The list is appropriate and properly formatted. I didn't notice any inappropriate words.
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.	The citations are formatted correctly for the short citation style. This is opinion - and I won't fail on this alone - but I believe this article would be better served with plain inline citations since it only has three sources and none have a wide page range. Switching to that would substantially reduce the amount of whitespace at the bottom of the article and make it simpler for readers to see what source is being cited (because the full citation shows in the mouseover). Done Michael Barera (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	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).	No issues here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No apparent OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No apparent copyright violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Looks good but may be too broad (see below).
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is overall focused and reads in a logical manner. However, the article is 60% background, 20% information on the railcar itself, and 20% information about its legacy. "Budd Company rubber-tired railcars" or similar might be a better title for the article. Done: Layout restructured, lede rewritten, and article moved to "Budd–Michelin rubber-tired rail cars". Michael Barera (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There are no neutrality issues with this article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues here.
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.	One fair use image that is properly licensed, and one free-use image that's clearly PD-US-note renewed. The third image, however, concerns me. This image is claimed under the EU 70-year rule; however, its source is listed as "private collection" without any indication it was actually published when created. Done: The image in question has been replaced by this image, which is clearly freely licensed. Michael Barera (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues with this criteria.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is very close to GA status. Check on the copyright for that one image, think about the article title, and consider switching to direct citations, and it's good to go. @Pi.1415926535: I believe that I have now addressed all your concerns, and I await your final decision. Thank you for reviewing this article! Michael Barera (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Great work, this is definitely GA quality now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]