Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virginian Railway/archive1

Virginian Railway

This is very detailed, well-illustrated, and extensively referenced. Connects the past to the present well. A potentially very dry topic, the article is organized and written in a way that makes it a captivating story. I have three edits in the history, limited to VERY minor stuff, like removing nearby duplicate links, some dab work, standardized formatting/layout, and removing some puff words like "wonderful". Mostly the work of Vaoverland, who did a lot of work on Battle of Hampton Roads, which was recently a 'Today's Featured Article'. Niteowlneils 16:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Some of the images need to be tagged. Once that's done I will support, as the article is quite good. JYolkowski 00:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Wow - very nice. However, I was about to support but saw some fairly significant structural issues. While reading the first half of the ==Building the Virginian Railway== section I kept on thinking "why am I reading this - it doesn't seem too connected to the subject." Then I realized that the first half is detailed backstory. In fact it was not until the 8th subsection that I got to ===Virginian Railway born===. But that subsection and the ones following (which are very much so on topic) in ==Building the Virginian Railway== were less detailed than the first part (which is backstory; important, but not in such detail in this article). To fix this I suggest creating a daughter article (think of a good name), move all the content now in ==Building the Virginian Railway== to it, and leave a good-sized summary of that at Virginian Railway (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Also the ==End of steam: decline at servicing points== section only has one paragraph. Either this is an underdeveloped point that needs to be expanded, or pretty much all that needs to be said has been said and the paragraph should be merged into another, larger section. ===The VGN in the 21st century=== seems to be underdeveloped. One sentence paragraphs annoy me so I was tempted to combine some sentences, but realized that each was making a rather distinct point. This tells me that each sentence needs to be expanded a bit to become true paragraphs (each current sentence would make for a good topic sentence for those paragraphs). ===Preservation activity & gatherings=== has similar issues but due to large sentence length, these are not as pressing (but still important). Nice lead section, btw. --mav 06:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will be working on the revisions as suggested. They are fairly major, and to round out the article, we will need some new content, which is available. Perrhaps getting the article off of fac nomination to allow time to work on it is OK. It probably should have gone to WP-PR first, anyway. Vaoverland 23:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)