Talk:Carolwood Pacific 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[edit]

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

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 03:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackdude101: I will be reviewing this article. I'll have to finish this review over the next few days. So far, this looks good: the images are OK from what I've seen, and there are no edit wars or other controversial changes. epicgenius (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I will begin reviewing the prose here.

Lead

the Holmby Hills neighborhood - You could link Holmby Hills, Los Angeles here.

Partly done It's already linked in the infobox. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 16:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and was first test run on December 24, 1949 - Although this is probably not ambiguous, this still reads awkwardly. I suggest "and made its first test run on December 24, 1949".

Done

The locomotive pulled a set of freight cars and a caboose, the latter of which was almost entirely built by Disney himself - How about "The locomotive pulled a set of freight cars, as well as a caboose that was almost entirely built by Disney himself" ?

Done

and on weekends, when the railroad was operating, he allowed them to do so - I suggest splitting this into a new sentence.

Done

The barn structure used as the control center for the railroad - This feels awkward. How about "The barn structure that was used as the railroad's control center" ? This is just a suggestion, however, because I don't think the replacement is much better either.

Done

Railroad attractions are now featured at many other Disney theme parks around the world - I think you can add a link to Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts somewhere in this sentence. It would help readers who want to know about these rail attractions. The "See also" would probably have to be removed though.

Done

History

always had a great passion for trains - How about "was always a rail enthusiast"? The link to railfan in the phrase "passion for trains" is a little unclear. I thought there was going to be an article about Disney's particular passion for trains. which would be pretty cool.

Done

like his father's cousin, Mike Martin, who told him stories about his experiences - too many "him"s and "his"es. How about dropping "him"?

Done

a news butcher job - I suggest "a job as a news butcher"

Done

As a teenager, Disney obtained a news butcher job on the Missouri Pacific Railway, selling various products to train passengers, including newspapers, candy, and cigars - This seems like a run-on sentence, so I'd split this into two.

Partly done I condensed this sentence instead. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 16:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and, using chewing tobacco as a bribe, the engineer and fireman would show him how to operate the locomotive - This sounds like the engineer and fireman are using chewing tobacco to bribe Disney. I think Disney is bribing the engineer and fireman. I suggest splitting this into two sentences, with a period at the end of He would sometimes climb over the tender and into the locomotive's cab while the train was in motion. Then the sentence about the chewing tobacco bribe could be reworded.

Done

In the second paragraph, you have two sentences with semicolons: the one that begins with These hobbyists included and The property consisted of. Since these are both lists with two items, you can just say "as well as" or "and" in place of the semicolons. Otherwise, they are run-on sentences because the semicolons will function to connect two sentences.

Done

The word Yensid is Disney spelled backwards - Is there any way to relate this to the previous sentence about "Yensid Valley"? This seems abrupt.

Done

The railroad's layout was planned to include - What about "Plans for the railroad's layout included 2,615 feet"?

Done

You could move the "Layout of the CPRR" image down here so readers can refer to the map. I see some text in the image. An upright scaling factor should help enlarge the image for all users.

Done

Aided by a Walt Disney Studios' attorney - It should be either "Aided by Walt Disney Studios' attorney" or "Aided by a Walt Disney Studios attorney".

Done

which was signed by him and his wife, and witnessed by their two daughters - He and his wife signed the contract and their daughters witnessed it. I suggest splitting into a new sentence and rewording it to this effect. The sentence is too long.

Done

The rest of the CPRR's rolling stock consisted of six cast-metal, wood-grain-patterned gondolas made by the studio's machine shop; and two boxcars, two stock cars, a flatcar, and a caboose made of wood from the studio's prop shop. - Suggest splitting into 2 sentences.

Done

All of the train cars except for the caboose, when not in use, were stored in the CPRR's tunnel. - How about "All of the train cars, except for the caboose, were stored in the CPRR's tunnel when not in use"?

Done

Also, the next paragraph mentions that the CPRR caboose was stored in the barn. I'd recommend placing this sentence after "All of the train cars...", or at the beginning of the next paragraph. Like "The CPRR's caboose was stored in a special barn where Disney monitored and controlled the CPRR's track", for instance.

Done

including Look magazine in September 1951 - How about "including the September 1951 issue of Look magazine"?

Done

and on weekends, when the railroad was operating, he allowed them to do so, even allowing some to become "guest engineers" and drive the train - Should probably be a separate sentence.

Done

In early 1953, a visitor drove the Lilly Belle too fast along a curve, making it derail - Instead of "making it", I suggest "causing it to". Then The derailment caused the Lilly Belle to fall on its side could be reworded as "As a result, the Lilly Belle fell on its side, broke its whistle, and released a jet of steam across the ground".

Done

Inspiration

The heading title seems out of place, as if the section is supposed to talk about the railroad's inspiration. What about "Influences" or something similar?

Done

Walt Disney credited the Carolwood Pacific Railroad with being his inspiration for the creation of Disneyland in Anaheim, California - how about "Walt Disney credited the Carolwood Pacific Railroad with inspiring the creation of Disneyland in Anaheim, California"? You'd credit the railroad with inspiring Disneyland, but the railroad itself would be the inspiration. So another option is "Carolwood Pacific Railroad was Walt Disney's inspiration for the creation of Disneyland in Anaheim, California".

Done I prefer your first option, as I want to emphasize that it was Walt Disney himself who stated that fact. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 20:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Casey Jr. Circus Train related to the CPRR, or is this just a coincidence?

Done That attraction was the end result of Disney wanting a miniature train ride within Disneyland in addition to the Disneyland Railroad. It was initially planned to have the CPRR's train be this attraction, but that idea was most likely abandoned due to it basically being a miniature death trap. Casey Jr. wasn't that much better, though, as it was temporarily shut down after the first day because the locomotive tipped backward on as steep hill and almost crushed the driver during testing. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 20:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool. I was wondering how the Casey Jr. train was related to the CPRR. That's very interesting. epicgenius (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disneyland Park (Paris) in France - I suggest "Disneyland Park in Paris, France" (although it's not actually in Paris). The parenthetical comment is awkward.

Done

The last sentence of the first paragraph is a good place to use semicolons. "Magic Kingdom within Walt Disney World in Florida" is especially wordy.

Done

Through a company named Walt Disney Miniature Railroad, formed by Walt Disney in 1950 as a legally separate entity from Walt Disney Productions, copies of the blueprints for the CPRR's Lilly Belle were sold to model railroad hobbyists. - I'd put the phrase "Copies [...] hobbyists" at he beginning of the sentence. So "Copies of the blueprints for the CPRR's Lilly Belle were sold to model railroad hobbyists through a company named Walt Disney Miniature Railroad, formed by Walt Disney in 1950 as a legally separate entity from Walt Disney Productions."

Done

More later. epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackdude101: Thank you for fixing these issues so quickly. Here's the rest of my prose review. I should have a reference review by tomorrow at the earliest. epicgenius (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Influences - picking back up from paragraph 2

Is birthplace of Imagineering an exact quote? Having the first word of the italicized text as a lowercase word is unusual. If it's a direct quote, I think quotation marks would work better. If not, then you should capitalize "Birthplace".

Done

In addition to Disney theme parks, the CPRR became the inspiration for the 1951 Disney animated short film Out of Scale - How about "In addition to inspiring rail attractions at Disney theme parks..." or something similar? As it is right now, the sentence is grammatically incorrect. In place of "Disney theme parks" there should be a phrase with a verb.

Done

in which the Donald Duck character is portrayed - Just "Donald Duck" should be fine. Most readers know he's a character.

Done

Preservation

after pulling up the CPRR's track the previous year - I think you should mention pulling up the tracks first before mentioning the donation. As in, something like: "Walt Disney pulled up the CPRR's track in 1964. The next year, Disney donated 1,500 feet (457.2 m) of that track, as well as the railroad's trestle, to the Los Angeles Live Steamers, a group of miniature steam train enthusiasts."

Done

the death of Walt Disney - how about "Walt Disney's death"? Or "Disney's death", either one.

Done

In 2013, before the property was sold to an unknown buyer the following year, the CPRR's tunnel was still in place - This is another example of jumping back and forth between years. I think you should mention it in order: the CPRR's tunnel was still in place as of 2013, but the property was sold to an unknown buyer the following year.

Done

In 2013, before the property was sold to an unknown buyer the following year, the CPRR's tunnel was still in place. In 1999, Walt Disney's Carolwood Barn, the CPRR's former control center, was relocated to the Los Angeles Live Steamers Railroad Museum - This is chronologically out of order. I understand that you are going through the house's chronology before describing the barn's aftermath. I suggest splitting "In 1999..." into a separate paragraph.

Done

in the Carolwood Pacific Railroad Room in the Boulder Ridge Villas at Disney's Wilderness Lodge in Walt Disney World - There are too many "in"s.

Done

That's it for now. As I mentioned above, I will do the references by tomorrow at the earliest. This looks like an excellent article so far. epicgenius (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

@Jackdude101: The book sources seem reliable. I can't access them directly so I am going to have to assume good faith. I trust your judgment, though.
I didn't check the web sources yet. However, are the online sources all dead? There's nothing wrong with having the archive, but this just gives the impression that you can't find these sources online anymore. epicgenius (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: All of the online sources are still active last I checked. If I recall correctly, archive links are necessary for passing FA reviews, which I plan to put this article through in the near future. Archive links are also handy to have if the original links become dead in the future. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 14:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackdude101: Sorry if I misspoke. I don't have an issue about the archive links. However, I thought that if these links were still live, the |dead-url= parameter in {{cite web}} should be set to no. It doesn't matter either way for this GA, but the issue of live URLS being listed as dead may come up at FAC. Anyway, I'm now going to check the web sources: epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 16(c) only mentions lead problems. Ref 60 mentions all the issues, though.

Done

Ref 16(d) only mentions that the tunnel was intact. The sale to an unknown buyer is sourced to Ref 60.

Done

Ref 19(a) doesn't mention why the CPRR was named. I'm assuming this is sourced to Ref 11.

Done Your assumption is correct. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 21:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 32 is a picture of Look magazine's Sep. 1951 issue. It supports the text Articles about the CPRR appeared in several magazines, including the September 1951 issue of Look magazine. However, I think it would be even more helpful if you added a quote or note inside the reference, to support the fact that this is an image of Look magazine. Just a suggestion.

Done

Ref 37 is a PDF and it needs page numbers.

Done

Refs 41, 47, 48, and 49 are from Disney.go.com. This is acceptable for this GA (they all support their respective text), but I think the folks at FAC will be looking for a secondary source as well. This is another suggestion.

Done Noted. Those sources are meant to prove that the attractions mentioned exist in general, and are not meant to reference anything beyond that. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 21:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 53: unrelated to the reference itself but I forgot to mention that when you have quotations like "birthplace of Imagineering", you need to say where the quote came from. In this case it's LA magazine.

Done

Ref 60 is a PDF and it needs page numbers. I see that the estate was sold for $74 million. Would this be a good detail to mention in the article?

Partly done I didn't mention that figure because I felt it was diverting too far away from the topic of the article. I didn't mention how much Brener, the previous owner, paid for the property, or how much Disney paid for it either. The only cost figure I mentioned was how much the CPRR cost to build. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 21:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 61 is a PDF and it needs page numbers.

Done

Ref 63 is from Disney.go.com and is a blog. As this is an official website, I will accept it. However, if you're going to take this to FA, I would recommend supplementing this with a secondary source, or suggest clarifying that this is an official website.

Done Noted. I used Disney Blog articles as sources in some of the other Wikipedia articles I improved, and I don't recall anyone having issues during the FA reviews for those articles in regards to those sources. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 21:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: when looking at Ref 62, I was surprised to learn this about the Lilly Belle: at one point during the moving process, the train derailed. That definitely made for a very tense moment!

That's all. After these issues are fixed, I will award this article the GA stamp. This article was very interesting, and it definitely has FA potential. epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I have addressed all of the issues you have presented. Everything should be satisfactory now. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 21:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackdude101: Congratulations! This is now officially a GA. Let me know when you take it to FAC. It definitely has the potential. epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2018 (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.