Talk:Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 09:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This one's short enough for me, I think. Look for my actual review sometime within the week - I'm distractible, but I will get to it.

Thank you for your patience! Here we go.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   No GA-level issues here. The rest of these comments are nitpicks that go beyond the GA criteria - worth mentioning IMO but not anything I'll hold against you for not jumping on.

   You shouldn't need citations in the lead because anything in the lead should be cited in the body. On that note, anything linked for the first time in the lead should be linked again in the body. As those aren't GA criteria issues I obviously won't hold it against you in a GAN but figured it's worth mentioning.

   "Even before opening" could be "Prior to opening" - "even" sort of creates this tone of surprise, which (and I'm quoting Sdkb here from the Inuit clothing FAC) "threatens a bit the detached scholarly tone we want to take".

   You probably want to integrate the reference to "red ink" so that someone unfamiliar with the idiom doesn't have to click elsewhere to get the context.

   Abbreviations for companies are fine but should be put in brackets after the first mention of the full name (ie, Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M)) so readers know for sure who's who.

   There's no reason for Nashua and Acton Railroad Company to be bolded way down at the end of the article. You could include it in the lead, something like "The Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad (later the Nashua and Acton Railroad Company)..." if you really want it in the article bolded.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I have no broad concerns here about reliability/verifiability, etc, although you seem to be missing a ref from the sentence that starts "At the time of the Nashua".

   I don't understand why you've used {{rp}} for a single ref but nowhere else - either it should be used for all of the book citations or none of them.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Given the short operating history of this railroad I don't see issues with length/scope. I imagine you've squeezed as much out of the sources as you can, although I did find an interesting article on JSTOR that mentions a little bit of apparent bond fraud that occurred around the railroad's opening. I can send you the PDF if you're interested.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   You've got a little bit of sandwiching between the quote box and the postcard image, and I absolutely hate that the box bumps the next section header over. Can we please move it? Even if we swap the quote with the image that would be better even if there's still sandwiching.

7. Overall: Overall a good effort, basically ready to pass once a few minor things are sorted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail: