# Talk:Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad

After removing the almost verbatim copyvio and excessively close paraphrasing htere is nothing left of this article. Meters (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to note that I removed my own A7 speedy request. A simple claim that the railway existed is a credible claim of significance It's not enough to show notability, but it's enough to avoid an A7 speedy. Meters (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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.
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.
Citations in the lead are an artifact from when I first started rewriting this article - I basically wrote it from scratch, bit by bit. The lead citations have been deleted (both are from Karr's book, so nothing was lost since it's cited elsewhere). "Even before opening" has been changed per your suggestion. Abbreviations should all be mentioned after the name of each railroad company. I've attempted to directly define the meaning behind "Red Line" in the prose, I'm open to further feedback on that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
These changes all look good. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
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.
That rp was added by a different editor, who inserted that one sentence while this article was at DYKN, I've deleted it. The missing ref has been added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
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.
I'd absolutely be interested in hearing about this, even if it's not necessary for GA status specifically. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I'll send it over once I'm at home :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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.
I've swapped the quote and the image, which stopped the section header from getting bumped over. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
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: