Talk:Norfolk and Western 611

Structure of body

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)

611 Leaving Strasburg Railroad

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)

GA Review

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)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): Happy so far.

   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:

(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)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Bruxton (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Norfolk and Western 611

• ... that Norfolk and Western 611 represents the ingenuity and pinnacle of steam locomotive technology? Source: https://fireup611.org/about-611/
  • Reviewed:

Created by 611fan2001 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Norfolk and Western 611; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. General eligibility:

• New enough: - No; it was nominated two months too late.
• Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @611fan2001: First, let me say that you did a great job improving this to Good Article status. As an avid railfan myself, I can appreciate how hard it is to find sources for individual locomotives, let alone improving articles about individual locomotives to GA status. That said, unfortunately, you nominated this article far too late for it to be eligible for a DYK appearance. It was improved to GA status on March 12, over two months ago, and should have been nominated shortly afterward (before March 19 at the latest). Furthermore, even if this were eligible, I'm sure a more specific hook could have been proposed from the details in the article. For future nominations, please note that wording like "the ingenuity and pinnacle of steam locomotive technology" is not likely to be approved, since it's extremely vague and sounds almost like marketing-speak. Epicgenius (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Why remove the 1956 wreck from the body of the article?

@ 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)

Let's link to Cedar train wreck in the body of the article

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)