# Talk:Norfolk and Western 611

Don't have time to do a full review right now, but I saw this on article alerts and skimmed it. I suggest breaking up the history section into several top-level sections, due to its length. At minimum, revenue service can be a top-level section, along with excursion service. The article is generally in very good shape though, and I expect it will pass GAN easily. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to know that if there are any plans for 611 to go back home to Roanoke Virginia? 70.188.111.54 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Just wait and see, man. There’s yet to be an announcement of her leaving Pennsylvania.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.169.64.51 (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, thank you, that would be nice. 70.188.111.54 (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Right now, the 611 is on display at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania until further notice. 611fan2001 (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. 70.188.111.54 (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I heard that No. 611 will be leaving the SRC probably at the end of May or the start of June. 611fan2001 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Norfolk and Western 611/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Trains2050 (talk · contribs) 05:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

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

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):  Happy so far.

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

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 non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed) 

A very good article, no need to do any changes. Meets criteria in my opinion.
Trains2050 (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm glad that my hard work on 611 is done (barely). 611fan2001 (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@ 611fan2001, why remove mention of the 1956 train wreck from the body of the article? Yes, as you mention, there is a detailed description of the wreck near the bottom of the article. That is why the description in the body was brief. But it was also important. The wreck is historically important, as the last country's major steam-powered revenue passenger train wreck. It is also why No. 611 has survived into its eighth decade, why it was not scrapped after less than a decade's service, and indeed why all of this was possible:

1.4 First mainline excursion service
1.5 Second retirement
1.6 Second mainline excursion service
1.7 Shortline excursion service
Finally, it makes little sense to refer to the wreck offhandedly ("...thanks to the extensive overhaul that followed its accident in early 1956"); service to the reader, at least, demands some earlier mention.  Particularly in view of the myriad of less-important detail, can you explain why you believe this crucial event in No. 611's existence should be relegated to a bullet point in a list? PRRfan (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've moved this 1956 wreck information back to the revenue service section. I'm sorry if I yelled at you. XP 611fan2001 (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
No worries! I didn't take it that way at all. Sometimes WP is no better than email at conveying a reasonable tone of voice. :) PRRfan (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
There's already a link to the Cedar Train wreck in the lead section. :P 611fan2001 (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I see the link in the intro. But I think readers would be well-served by links to Cedar train wreck in the History (more than one thousand words after the intro) and Accidents sections (more than 5,000 words after that). This is explicitly permitted by MOS:REPEATLINK ("Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as...at the first occurrence in a section"). PRRfan (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I've moved the 1956 wreck link back to the revenue service section. 611fan2001 (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Here’s a question that’s been bugging my mind for a little while: with so much effort being put into making this page as detailed and reliable as possible, why hasn’t it been nominated as a Featured Article at this point? I just checked the Rail Transport category over there, and it appears the only American steam locomotive page to have earned that status is John Bull. I’m certainly not asking if I could nominate it myself, as I’ve only contributed by adding a couple of magazine sources and that’s it. I’m just asking if anyone thinks this page is worthy of that nomination. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Trainsfan13  what do you think? Someone who likes train writing (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
I’m not sure if that's necessary because the article needs copy-editing to meet the Feature Article guidelines. Trainsfan13 (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Moving this here until it becomes fact, not prediction: "Starting around the last weekend of May 2025, No. 611, despite being under maintenance, will be participating in its 75th anniversary celebration as well as being presented alongside No. 1218 as official National Historic Landmarks." PRRfan (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Moved from article: "June 27, 2024, brought the retirement of VMT Board President Will Harris, who had been instrumental in planning No. 611's VSR excursions." If Harris is significant in No. 611's story, then he should be mentioned earlier. We don't care when or even that he retired unless his exit somehow changed things. PRRfan (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)