Talk:Bighorn Divide and Wyoming Railroad

Bighorn Divide and Wyoming Railroad has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 15, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Wyoming Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Wyoming portal This article is supported by WikiProject Wyoming.

GA Review

Passed. Etrius ( Us) 01:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bighorn Divide and Wyoming Railroad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 02:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review, this ought to be a quick one. I am a bit worried about the rather small length but It's not GA's place to discuss AfD issues. Etrius ( Us) 02:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images

One fair use image, checks out. Other image is properly attributed under CC-BY-2.0.

Copy-vios

Earwig only flags 'The Bighorn Divide and Wyoming Railroad', which, for obvious reasons is not a copy-vio. Random spot checks finds nothing

Sources

"The Bighorn Divide and Wyoming (BDW) Railroad". Transportation and Logistics International. 2014-06-23. Retrieved 2022-08-28. 404, dead link
Archive link added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

Stability isn't an issue

Prose

' 40 miles (64 km)' I can see this is in FN 2, please site within infobox
Mention that they operate 40 miles but only own 23 miles
It's the other way around. They operate 40 miles (actually 41.2 miles per the Wyoming 2021 State Rail Plan; but just 31.7 route miles), but 23.5 of those miles are owned by BNSF. I am looking into this and should have it sorted out shortly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
took over operations specify the line
Specified that the Bighorn Divide and Wyoming Railroad took over the Bad Water Railway. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The trucking company, railroad, and repair shop needs to be tied back to the article.
A railcar repair shop was built in Shoshoni... in general, the first two sentences need to be tightened up. It feels more like a listing of facts that might be associated with the rail line
The railroad owns and operates... Run on sentence
Respectfully disagree on this point. I feel the semicolon avoids this becoming run-on. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings I fixed it. There was an extra comma that made the sentence seem like 3 independent clauses put together. Etrius ( Us) 19:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't much to comment on since this a very short article. I won't quibble about adding too many bits of extra info, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is some information in the sourcing that could further be added but, again, it wouldn't be appropriate to hunt you down on every piece of trivia. I've looked for extra sources and nothing is immediately sticking out as missed. Page is on hold. Etrius ( Us) 02:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Etriusus, thanks for taking on this review. There's one article I did find, but it's behind a hard paywall. I certainly don't think there's any concerns with notability; "The little railroad that could" is clearly significant coverage in a secondary source, as is the article in the Billings Gazette. It's extremely rare for an active railroad company not to clear GNG. I did find one source (a letter written by the BDW's president to Harry Reid, which mentions the annual carloads carried by the railroad, usable per WP:ABOUTSELF); I will add that to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the small length, I'm certainly open to any suggestions you have on incorporating more information into the article. Please feel free. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't feel it is appropriate to harp too much on rather minute details. Of course there is probably something that could be added but it is far outside the scope of GA criteria. I, funny enough, ran into a similar issue with another GA review I did recently regarding an obscure species of monkey. It's the nature of what sources are available and I'm not surprised that a ~40 year old railroading company that only operates a few miles of track is going to make a very short article. This page wouldn't be the shortest GA to ever pass, but I'll give it a second look just for posterity's sake.

Yikes, you weren't kidding about the hard paywall. I tried a couple of work-arounds without success. Etrius ( Us) 19:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

expansion suggestions

[1] This is a very minor point but the president is listed
FN 7, as a whole, has some information that could be added. Especially in reference to what kind of cargo they carry

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I won't hold you to the above suggestions. I cleaned up any last-minute, copy-editing issues. The page is broad enough in coverage and passes GA, congrats!!!

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.