Talk:Grizzly Flats Railroad/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RickyCourtney (talk · contribs) 07:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings! I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. --RickyCourtney (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Article is well written and is a fascinating read.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead does a good job of both summarizing and setting the stage for the broader article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article is well referenced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources *look* good but without access to the physical books, it’s impossible to double check on this point.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article appears to contain no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Run through copyvio detector came back clean.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects are covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused without straying too far beyond the primary topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is uncontoversial and coverage is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The fair use image, while a very good illustrative image, lacks a good source. I feel like we need to know who the photographer is. @RickyCourtney: The image in question has been replaced by a different image on Wikimedia Commons. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Looks good, thanks. --RickyCourtney (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and have good captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass - Article looks good, as a native Southern Californian, a railfan and a fan of the Disney theme parks, this was a facinating read. I never knew about this facinating bit of history. One item for editors to keep an eye on the developments on the Justi Creek Railway page. It appears that the depot building and water tower may have been destroyed by the October 2017 Northern California wildfires. At this point, it seems a better source needs to be cited before including that information on this page. --RickyCourtney (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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.