Talk:North Carolina Transportation Museum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 8 November 2016. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 


Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.163.147 (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello 97.82.163.147 . Please don't vandalism the article or you could be banned. Thanks for constructive edits.-21:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:North Carolina Transportation Museum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 21:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I am going to Review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    I ran the copyvio tool and found that the WP article & radiomuseum.org/museum/usa/north-carolina-transportation-museum-spencer/.html have some troubling areas of commonality with each other, down to the spacing etc:
    • The North Carolina Transportation Museum is a transport museum in Spencer, North Carolina. The museum is largely devoted to the state's railroad history; however, its collection also includes exhibits of automobiles and aircraft. The museum is located at the former Southern Railway's 1896-era Spencer Shops
    • Heritage railroad
    The museum has a heritage railroad, which operates passenger excursion trains several times per day, year round, but on a seasonal schedule. Trains are...
    • Cab rides [to the normal excursion] can be purchased at Barber Junction.
    Usually in cases like this the other site is copying WP, but I have noticed that at least one named COI-account has edited the article in the past so who knows... Anyway, these sentences will need to be adjusted/re-crafted before the Review can proceed. Shearonink (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Part D  Done - Reworded the lead and these sentences noted above accordingly. Earwig now reads 2.9% = only the name of the museum showing. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  2. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  3. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No edit-wars found. Shearonink (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  4. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  5. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Everything looks pretty much good to go. I did one last readthrough to see if I missed anything, found one issue, as soon as that is adjusted I can finish reviewing this article for GA status. Shearonink (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    Congrats. Shearonink (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

References[edit]

Ref #2 is a mostly-bare URL, it needs to be filled-out with more details. (date, publisher, website, etc). Done - used reference template to replace bare URL. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Ref #1 goes to a website search instead of an individual result. Shearonink (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC) =  Done Removed reporting mark = not needed, as it tends to be an advertising promotion. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

One last thing[edit]

I think the lead section would benefit from some additional claims to notability - for instance, the Museum 1)has the largest collection of rail relics in the Carolinas, 2)the Back Shop at sone time was the largest industrial building when it was built in 1920 (TWO football fields long! - how in the world did I miss that before?...), etc. Pending the completion of adjustments to the lead section, I will then be able to finish up my review. Shearonink (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)