Talk:Atlantic Coast Line 1504

Atlantic Coast Line 1504 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: February 13, 2023. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: Locomotives 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. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by the Locomotives task force. National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Atlantic Coast Line 1504/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll be waiting for a while. 611fan2001 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently edited the page with more new information added. 611fan2001 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be tomorrow... I had a trough heater fail last night and am about to go chop out the ice and get a new one in... by the time I finish that, I"m going to be utterly spent for the day except for emergencies... heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • The lead says "It was assigned to pull ACL's mainline passenger trains until it was retired in 1952." but the body of the article says that it pulled passenger trains and then went to freight trains and then local traffic - which contradicts the implication in the lead that it only did passenger trains until retirement.
  • "as the only original USRA Light Pacific steam locomotive to be preserved" thanks to my work on Fairfax Harrison, I know what the USRA is, but most readers won't.
• Design:
  • "No. 1504 was the fifth member of 70 USRA Light Pacifics" - as above, need an explanation for USRA here. Also - you linked to USRA Light Pacific in the lead, but suggest doing so here also.
• Preservation:
  • "which has been sitting on display with faded paint due to its exposure to the elements" should be "which had been sitting on display with faded paint due to its exposure to the elements" since it's no longer there...
• A new lease on life with U.S. Sugar:
  • I suggest that we should go with a new section title here - it's a bit unencylopedic - maybe "Return to working service"?
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool mostly shows no sign of copyright violation, but this page rgusrail.com/flacl1504.html has one spot that is a bit close - the wiki article says "No. 1504 was chosen for preservation by ACL president Champion Davis and the Head of ACL's Mechanical Department, John W. Hawthorne. In 1960, the locomotive was mechanically overhauled and was put on static display in front of the ACL General Office Building in Jacksonville, Florida." while the source says "#1504 was eventually chosen for preservation by ACL President, Champion Davis, and the Head of ACL's Mechanical Department, John W. Hawthorne. In 1960, the locomotive was given a thorough mechanical overhaul and placed on display in front of the then new ACL General Office Building in Jacksonville." which is pretty close to the source - this should probably be reworded to avoid the close paraphrasing.
• Spot checks:
  • "When the ACL railroad dieselized its passenger trains in the late 1940s, No. 1504 was reassigned to fast freight service in the Tampa, Florida area, where it hauled 50-60 freight cars at maximum allowable speeds until its retirement from revenue service on December 31, 1952." is sourced to this source p. 54. I'm not quite sure this supports the information - the source does not say that the reassignment to Tampa was "fast freight" nor that it was in the Tampa area that it hauled 50-60 cars.
  • "The cosmetic restoration work would include adding new cab windows and doors, and renovating the headlamp." is sourced to this source which supports the information.
  • "In July 2013, the North Florida Chapter of the National Railway Historical Society (NRHS) launched the Project Return to Glory group to fund the cosmetic restoration of the No. 1504 locomotive, which has been sitting on display with faded paint due to its exposure to the elements." is sourced to this source basically supports the information (the "faded paint due to its exposure to the elements" can easily be inferred from the "tough climate to preserve a large piece of metal" and the desire for a cover to go over it)

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the ASME pdf source on page 7, it says that, "After the advent of diesels on the ACL after World War II, the P-5-A engines were used in fast freight service. 1504 spent its last years in freight service in the Tampa area, and was retired in 1952." 611fan2001 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@611fan2001: Are you finished with copyediting? I'm waiting on you finishing up to do a final check. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: I've added new information that some of the P-5-As' tenders were re-equipped with mechanical stokers as opposed to the coal pushers, excluding No. 1504. I don't know when this happened maybe in the 1930s, but I digress. 611fan2001 (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we set enough with the text so I can do a final check? Ealdgyth (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it looks like were all set. 611fan2001 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All these look good! Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: I've forgot to add this additional NRHP PDF source here: https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/2c99d7ff-f3dd-4b13-9f2d-8a1e0a377e8a 611fan2001 (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]