Talk:New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway/Archive 2

Re-Nominated the article for GA.

I have renominated the article. I think its ready this time. I hope I'm not stepping on any toes by doing it. This article has been re-worked and I think can pass this time. 3D jonny 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I've just read the entire article and, honestly, I think it's very, very well written. Only a handful of concerns exist in my mind, most of them being problems conforming to various Manuals of Style. I'm putting the article on Hold until they're fixed. Please drop me a message when all items are done and strikethough'd and I'd have no qualms passing it as a Good Article. Thanks! thadius856_talk 20:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article revision suggestions

(Strikethroughs have been performed)

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead paragraph for this article may need to be broken into two smaller lead paragraphs or trimmed down. Split in two
• Per WP:MOSNUM, please put a non-breaking space character between figures and units to prevent them from wrapping to the next line.
  • Example: "500 miles (800 km)" done
• Generally speaking, "The" should not start a section heading, unless explicitly required (ex. The Great Depression)
  • Example: "The Route Through New Jersey" Edited titles
• The table of contents (TOC) is stretched far too wide by long section names. Consider shortening them.
  • Example: "The Route Through New York State and Pennsylvania section" Edited titles
• If it is possible to shrink the TOC, consider floating it using {{TOCleft}}.Floated it right, just under the infobox
• Only the first word of section names should be capitalized unless they are proper nouns.
  • (I'm unfamiliar with the topic, but shouldn't "Northern Division" become "Northern division"? Same for Southern Division.) edited title names
• Avoid creating section stubs and expand existing ones to at least one four-sentence paragraph.
  • Example: "Route" section and "Northern division" section addressed this below – will expand these ASAP
• Per WP:CONTEXT, full dates should be wikilinked (2006-11-04), but partial dates or year should not (November 2006, 2006) unless they help to give context.
  • Example: "1840" in the "Initial construction" section and "30 June 1966" in the "The 1950s and 1960s" section checked all dates, de-linked most
• One-sentence paragraphs should be combined with the preceeding or following paragraph, or removed entirely.
  • Example: "Passenger service between the growing Stroudsburg and New York City began in the fall of 1882, continuing until 1941." edited this sentence to the previous paragraph, checked for other stranded sentences
• Use an mdash instead of "-" when using it in a sentence to show to multiple conjunctive clauses.
  • Example: "itself fully dieselized – the first Class I railroad" fixed the cited instance and checked for others.
• Neither "Sparta" nor "Sparta, New Jersey" or any other variant are wikilinked in the article. Consider doing so. added wikilink
• Use bold text extremely sparingly; typically it is only required in tables, headings, etc.
  • Example: "...by the Delaware Otsego Corporation, headed by Walter Rich]..." this was edited by 3D jonny
• Convert the following links into references at the end of the sentence or remove them entirely:
  • "Then, two of the ALCO C430 locomotives (3002[1] and 3004[2]) were wrecked..." moved links to end of sentence, made references
• The "Interchanges with Class I railroads" section and "Company officers" section both devalue the article in my opinion. I don't see any reason for keeping them in the article, as they should probably be moved to seperate lists. I would support linking them in the "See Also" section, but I would warn against transcluding them back in. moved class I interchange list to renamed trivia section (see below) 3D jonny removed the officer list
• The "Trivia" section should either be added into the article itself as references or removed from the article entirely. Renamed to 'Miscellany and added class I interchange information.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Happy editing! thadius856_talk 21:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, looks like I won't be bored at work :o) I broke up the lead and I'll continue editing until it's done.
Kether83 12:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally I disagree with the idea that the Interchange and company officers list shouldn't be in the article. And yes its is because I wrote the list of company officers! Alot of articles have lists like that. Buuut if it gets the article GA status, I'll take it out. 3D jonny 03:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I second 3D Jonny's thoughts on inclusion of company officers. This is one item that has been integrated into the recommended data to include for each railroad per the recently adopted Trains WikiProject manual of style. Slambo (Speak) 12:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've saved the list on my computer, so if we want, it can be added back at any time. Did Thadius use the Trains/MOS for this review? Maybe it would help if he went back and used it in reviewing the article? 3D jonny 14:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I could understand if the lists directly related to the article, but I don't remember ever seeing a single past president named in the article otherwise. If you would like to keep the lists, then that's your choice as a group and I won't enforce it by any means, as I have no reason or power to do so. I'd be more than willing to remove the hold and let another editor step in. Please do realize, however, that this is probably one of the best-written articles I've read as a GA candidate and it was a pleasure to read. Aside from the slight MOS repairs, you guys have a pretty good shot at FA status without much more work, though you'll likely need more references. Just let me know on my talk page what you decide. thadius856_talk 04:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Please strikethrough any items that have been completed, if possible. It'd make re-reviewing, either by myself or another editor, far easier. thadius856_talk 04:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that Walter Kidde and Henry Norton were both mentioned in the article as well as Walter Rich and they were all presidents/executives in the company. But thats splitting hairs. I'm very pleased that you think this article is so well written. Major props go out to Kether83 for his major writing and edits on the page, Slambo with his edits and formatting. If anyone wants to give me praise, please feel free! Once this is FA status, I'm moving on to the DL&W as my next project3D jonny 15:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The latest round of GA editing

• I've added non-breaking spaces to all measurements ( )
• I changed the section titles to edit out "the" as much as possible
• About the TOC change – I'm a little weary of using abbreviations in a section title like that, maybe we can come up with a different title altogether? Granted it is a subsection but personally, I like to keep abbreviations in the text, where they can be wikilinked.
• Renamed Trivia to Miscellany — it's good information but needs a more professional packaging
• Floated TOC to the right (left chewed up the layout)
• Edited section names which were using capitals besides first words/proper nouns
• The single sentence under the Route section should be expanded, and the stub-like Northern division section needs to be expanded as well (I'm still working on the map)... maybe something about how the current route is a mixture of original NYS&W track along with the other roads which are now defunct. I can't think of anything right now but I'll work on it. This goes with the MOS point that section stubs are to be avoided and if extant, expanded.
• De-linked many links to years as per WP:Context – I also added some links to full dates, but they turned up red and so I omitted them temporarily.
• Changed an en-dash to em-dash, linked Sparta NJ, moved the C430 wreck links
• I took the Class I interchange list and threw it into the miscellany section in the interest of brevity, and making that section seem more justifiable

Now.. is there a reason we have a Notes section and References? I might be wrong, but why should they be separated when they are all references? Also, the page isn't parsing correctly. It looks decent enough in Firefox but it's really not right in Internet Explorer (v.7 at least). Could someone check out the page layout/formatting and see if there are any hidden issues? It was a problem with the TOC being under the infobox.. I moved it back to the left and the page parses fine in Firefox and IE, but shows the TOC tag at the end of the intro paragraph in both browsers – can that be fixed? (Kether83 09:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC))

Other than that, I think we're good for the GA nod :o)
Kether83 08:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the {{TOCleft}} showing up at the end of the lead section. I just removed the {{tl|TOCleft}} text, since all that does is create a link to Template:TOCleft with curly braces and with "Template:" suppressed. Slambo (Speak) 11:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Passed GA!

I've done the last minor fixes (mostly wikilinks and {{TOCleft}}) myself so we could pass this article as GA. Here's some help for dates, which I fixed:

"June 2, 1948" -> [[1948-06-02]] or [[June 2]], [[1948]]

The rest looks awesome, except for a small section stubs that needs to be updated. I've also merged the references and notes sections, as you seemed to noticed that needed to be done. I would have said something the first time, but I didn't want it to seem like I was splitting hairs. However, for FA status, your references will need some cleanup. You'd most likely need to start using the cite templates, eg. {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc. Lastly, you'll want to remove as many external links as possible, for three reasons:

1. If they're useful as references, you should have no problem using them like your other footnotes.
2. It becomes easier to monitor if somebody adds linkspam or useless external links.
3. It adds to the feel of consistency for the article.

Congratulations on good article status everybody! thadius856_talk 23:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

A GA review has just opened on this article, and I thought I should mention it here, since this article has clearly been through the process quite a good deal with alot of reviwers giving comments. It's at WP:GA/R. Homestarmy 01:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I swear some people have nothing to do with their time. Thanks for the heads up. 3D jonny 16:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Rendering issues

I was having some really bad issues with the page rendering incorrectly, and making text unreadable. The maps were automatically placing on top of some text because of the large glut of non-text objects in one place (infobox, TOC, 2 maps). So I moved some things around and while it looks fine now in Firefox 2.0, IE7 is having problems with the beginning of Route Through NJ. I'll work on it, but as a demographic measure, who here uses FFox vs. IE? And IE 6 or 7? Does it look OK in IE6? Thanks. Kether83 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I use IE 6 and it hasn't looked right in about a week. The route section is out of whack. 3D jonny 16:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough the page renders better on my wife's laptop. My computer runs at 1280x1024, her laptop runs at 1280x800. But she is running IE 6 as well. 3D jonny 13:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

ND Map

We got GA and everyone fell asleep! (jk... I did too :o)

I finally put the map in after being busy/procrastinating. I also added some text dealing with the northern div, but as I'm not familiar with it maybe someone who is could make a better writeup? Also, I edited the captions on all of the maps and put in "Click to enlarge" as an aid to those who might not know you could do that (read: older railfans perhaps just noticing this wikipedia thing). The railfan demographic is, by nature, mostly older and less computer literate than perhaps ourselves, so I figure the extra effort to make it user-friendly is well-justified.

Now to get to other things on that pesky to-do list... Kether83 06:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just as guilty. I'll get back in gear. I still want to finish writing the WB&E article. Not enough time in the day!3D jonny 03:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)