Talk:Southern Railway 4501

Southern Railway 4501 is currently a Transport good article nominee. Nominated by Someone who likes train writing (talk) at 19:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Short description: Preserved American Ms class 2-8-2 steam locomotive

Tennessee Low‑importance

	Tennessee portal Southern Railway 4501 is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

	National Register of Historic Places portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Southern Railway 4501/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Someone who likes train writing (talk · contribs) 19:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 23:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. Decided I'll have some time after all. Should be done with my first pass of the review by the end of the weekend. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Please change any all-caps titles in references to title case. Make sure references are consistent - for instance that the Tennessee Valley Railway Museum is always referred to that way, rather than variants such as Tennessee Valley Railroad Holding further review of prose until sourcing issues are addressed. Beginning detailed prose review.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Pass, it does indeed. No uncited passages.
	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).	Keefe (Classic Trains) is a blog - a more reliable source would be preferable. Paulus is essentially a self-published source. What indicates that it's reliable? What makes SteamCentral a reliable source? Chattanoogan.com seems marginal - do we have any previous discussions of its reliability? Is RailServe.com reliable? Seems like a full-featured hobbyist site, not a journalistic enterprise Macon.com could be modified to call it the Macon Telegraph and include the publisher (McClatchy). Issues addressed, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Re Scholl, citing directly to a DVD with train footage seems like WP:OR. Issue addressed, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig, hold for manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Nothing else findable. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Re: Lerro, unless it was covered by a secondary source, saying that it was in a photoshoot is probably too much detail. Holding further review of focus until sourcing issues are addressed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
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.	All good, pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Well illustrated, no major issues, may tweak captions in prose review. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Sourcing issues fixed

I converted most of the sources, including the Trains, Classic Trains, Chattanoogan, and Macon ones, from Cite Web to Cite News. I also removed the Paulus, SteamCentral, and RailServe sources, and I tried to make sure all of the remaining sources are consistent. I hope this cleared up most of the issues. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll take a closer look tonight, but on first spec the changes seem to cover most of the issues. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone who likes train writing, any thoughts on the reliability of Keefe and The Chattanoogan? —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811 Classic Trains is a magazine source that actively releases issues under the Trains magazine umbrella. They’ve even had the same publisher, Kalmbach, which has somewhat recently been absorbed into Firecrown. But since that particular source is said to be a blog, I’ll delete the text it’s attached to, I suppose.

As for the Chattanoogan, from what I’ve observed, it’s a news outlet that’s local to Chattanooga. I’m pretty sure it checks out as a news source. The Chattanoogan articles in that page may sort of look like blog sources, but it’s partially because they were archived in an older format. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. I had a look at the Chattannoogan again and though it's not a huge outlet, it has been around for a while, which gives it a certain credibility. I also found some instances of the Chattanooga newspaper citing it, so that's good enough at GA. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]