Talk:Everard Calthrop/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   References should always be after punctuation, like so.^[1] " In 1879 he joined the Great Western Railway, where he rose to assistant manager of the Carriage and Wagon Works and then in 1882 he went to India to join the Great Indian Peninsula Railway as a locomotive inspector." - should be split into two clauses. "25' x 7'" needs conversions to metric, and possibly needs to be rewritten as "25 feet by 7 feet".

Done. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References to websites should be standardized using {{cite web}}.

Done. --Michael Johnson (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No specific date of birth/death is available? "He settled on a loading of 5 tons per axle, allowing lines to be built with 30lb rail." - Not being a railroad guy, I'm not sure what that means. A short explanatory phrase on why the Barsi Light Railway converted to standard gauge would be helpful. This being a biography article, there is little about Calthrop's personal life, which usually merits a separate section in other articles. If not much about it can be found (other than he liked inventing things and breeding horses), this does not apply. I couldn't help but wonder where he lived and if he married.

Wish I knew too! I have yet to come across a biographical article about Calthrop, the information I have comes from what are basicly technical books. All biographical information I have has been included. I have improved the explanation of the other points you raised, hope they are ok. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

3. 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):

   A picture of the man himself would be helpful, and certainly in public domain. If it doesn't exist, however, then that's all right.

I did find a photo on a website, but cannot establish whether it is in the public domain, so had to delete it. Still looking. --Michael Johnson (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether the image was created during his lifetime or not, and the rules regarding public domain (or its equivalent) in India or England. I know in the U.S. anything published before 1979 (or thereabouts) is PD, but I'm not familiar with other countries' laws. —Rob (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Looks sharp. Well done! —Rob (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Passing since it meets the GA criteria. If a picture of the man is found, that works, but it's not required. Congrats! —Rob (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)