Template:Did you know nominations/N&W LC-1

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

N&W LC-1[edit]

(

)

N&W LC-1 No. 2501 on the Elkhorn Grade in 1915

... that at the time of its introduction on the Elkhorn Grade, the N&W LC-1 (pictured) was the largest and heaviest electric locomotive in the United States?

Reviewed: Cicely Pearl Blair

Created by Mackensen (talk). Self-nominated at 15:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC).

A QPQ review needs to be performed for this to move forward. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Reviewed Cicely Pearl Blair. Mackensen (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

For Elkhorn Grade Electrification: New enough, long enough (over 2,800 characters), and generally within policy: it is certainly neutral, well supported with inline citations (although many are to a book to which I do not have access, so I am accepting them in good faith), and free from any plagiarism or other copyright concerns that I can detect.

For N&W LC-1: New enough, long enough (over 2,500 characters), and within basic policy: like the previous article, it is neutral, well referenced with inline citations (although I am again accepting many in good faith), and free of any detectable plagiarism or copyright issues (the one direct quote is not unnecessarily long). My one suggestions would be adding a cited note about the LC-1s being scrapped into the prose of the article (presumably found in the Middleton book, based on how the infobox is cited), although this certainly isn't a dealbreaker for passing this DYK nomination.

Hook: The hook is short enough, properly formatted, certainly interesting, neutral, and referenced properly with an inline citation (although to the Middleton book, to which I do not have access, so I am accepting it in good faith).

Other: QPQ has been done (due to the amount of shared material between these two articles, I don't think it would be fair to ask for a second review), and the photo selected for the hook is in the public domain and used in both of the nominated articles. It also looks good at small size and, in my opinion, would work well on the main page.

Overall: All in all, good to go, accepting the Middleton references in good faith. Nice work as always, Mackensen! Michael Barera (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)