Talk:EMD FL9

No details about FL9AC rebuilds?

I don't have any authoritative sources to go by, otherwise I'd add a section myself. I myself have only bare details, e.g. the rebuild thereof was by ABB Traction, the locomotive horsepower was increased per unit to 3000, DC traction motors were replaced by AC traction motors, they could run in electric mode at GCT as opposed to having the prime mover running and belching diesel exhaust at the platforms there, one unit could haul a train versus two, and that's about it. Irishchieftain 06:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

current status

My understanding was that the Metro North replaced them all with the dual-mode GE Genesis units, but I wouldn't trust that without corroborating evidence. Ckape 04:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most recent info I could find was that they were being replaced by the Genesis on most services, but a few were being retained for short local runs and as backup. This was circa 2002, so there has been a little while since then ... —Morven 08:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've done a little more research and it sounds a bit like they're being phased out, but the process isn't complete yet. It also looks like the best bet to take pictures is to find the Croton-Harmon shops. I understand they have annual open-houses there, but it looks like they're always in mid-October. -- ckape (talk) 23:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

10-12-2005 - A farewell tour was announced on the MTA site at http://as0.mta.info/mnr/excursion_tickets/give_more_info.cfm?dest_station=298&multi_id=47

The FL9s are no longer used in passenger service. The word from Metro-North is that they'll be around for use on work trains until they break down, at which point they won't be fixed. Pgengler 15:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

They are still in service. Revenue service has decreased due to leased P40s but some runs, especially the Waterbury branch, still use them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.5.126 (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The article may be badly screwed up ... I will have to contact a friend in Pittsburgh who goes back further than I but I believe the the (Metro North only ?) FL9s were diesel only (with the diesel supplying the DC power to run the motors). I believe that the third rail capability and AC motors were added with the FL9-AC Dual Mode rebuild by ABB Traction Inc.; ten locomotives were re-designed / re-built starting in late '80s / early 90's with the last delivery in 1995 or 1996. They were in use until shortly after the 21st century began; after the GE Genesis locomotives had been introduced and debugged. Coming on board in 1992 as one of the electrical engineers on the project, I have fond memories of test runs up to Poughkeepsie and back (to the Croton-Harmon yard). It really is something to walk through the loco with the diesel running at full tilt. And looking out the window from the train engineer's station you feel like you're hardly moving even as the speedometer reads 90 MPH! The good old days! JimScott (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Another very old talk page comment I'm replying to here, but the FL9s were dual mode capable as built. The FL9AC rebuilds were largely a failure and were taken out of service pretty quickly. Metro-North's FL9s were diesel only towards the end of their lives due to their age, the electrical equipment was still there but didn't function properly and the FL9s ran into Grand Central with the diesel engines on in flagrant violation of the ban on non-electric locomotives operating in the GCT tunnels. That's called out in some of the sources I reviewed but I need to add it to the prose still. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Copy edit tag

I've added headings and I think the article is OK. May I remove the tag? If not, please say what further work is needed. Biscuittin (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

FG9

Discussion on LocoNotes about a heavy fuel B-A1A EMD locomotive called the "FG9". It was never built. Don Strack started the topic as he has correspondence between EMD and Union Pacific Superintendent of Motive Power Mr. Neuhart. --SSW9389 20:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)--SSW9389 20:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSW9389 (talk • contribs)

Corrections

Weight limit was for the Harlem River Bridge, not the entire Park Avenue viaduct; the three-axle rear truck reduced "axle loading" to fall within the bridge limit.

3rd rail has been extended from Woodlawn to Pelham, about 2½ miles. This allows changeover (DC to AC & vice versa) to occur away from the NH-Harlem interlockings at Woodlawn. Keo (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, correct. They had to remedy the weight of the steam boiler (used for carriage heating). 82.134.208.198 (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a very old talk page comment, but I did want to say that during my rewrite and expansion all the sources I found explicitly called out the Park Avenue Viaduct as being the reason for weight restrictions. This was a consistent theme across sources from different authors and publications. Therefore, the article currently states that Park Avenue Viaduct was the reason for the A1A rear truck. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Third rail voltage

I see the article currently claims a 660V DC voltage. Diesel Locomotives of the New Haven Railroad supports 600V DC, which is what I thought the voltage was. New Haven Line lists the voltage as 750V DC. Has the voltage changed multiple times? I'm going to change this article to reflect 600V DC unless I can find evidence to the contrary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Article status

I have a bit more work to do, but I've done a comprehensive rewrite and expansion of the article. All those orange banners are gone, and almost everything is cited now. There are a few issues that I haven't been able to fully address and remain obstacles to bringing the article to GA status:

• I am having trouble effectively sourcing the subsequent history of the six Amtrak units retired in the 1990s.
• I can't find a source for the claim that the FL9 purchased from CTDOT by Boston Surface has been purchased by Mass Coastal / Cape Cod Central.
• I haven't been able to source the claim about the Merchants Limited travel time in the operation section.
• For some reason, all references to FL9 2002 seem to have been removed from the RMNE website, though as far as I can tell it's still at the museum. There's an archived link from an earlier version of their website supporting that it is there in storage.
• I'm not sure the "in popular culture" section should be kept, though it definitely needs a better source than IMDb. One of the sources I reviewed while doing the expansion did source that claim, so I need to track that down and add a citation.
• I've added some detail on the FL9AC rebuilds and how they weren't successful, but I haven't found as much detail on why the rebuilds failed as I would have liked.

I'd appreciate any help anyone can provide with these remaining items. I was able to address the vast majority of the problems that existed in this article for many years, I just need a little help getting from 95% to 100% of the way to being ready for GAN. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:EMD FL9/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 17:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 21:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll take this review. The usual boilerplate: please respond to comments with {{done}}, {{not done}}, etc. Note that I may make some suggestions that are beyond the GA criteria – my aim is to make the article as good as possible – but I will only pass/fail based on the criteria. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Good work here, including your changes so far. Don't be discouraged by the number of comments below - most are minor fixes or cleaning up cruft that predates you. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Placing on hold for now - just give me a ping when you're able to address the last few comments (or if you're busy IRL and need more time). Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Could I get your feedback on my responses to your items? Particularly the surviving examples section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: My replies are below. The only remaining items I see are two splits of long paragraphs (just added these below), one item in the surviving examples section, and maybe that one paragraph merge. Otherwise, everything looks great. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Infobox image is "near" Enfield per the source, not necessarily at Enfield station

  I assumed it was linking to the town of Enfield, rather than the station. I changed the link to point to the town. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Link "electro-diesel"

  Assuming you meant in the infobox, done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Some of the infobox information is not sourced

  Removed roots blower as I can't find support for it, but Diesels to Park Avenue calls out the generators, traction motors, and air brakes. Did I miss citations for any other technical information? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think we need to list the New Haven's designation in the lead; it doesn't seem to have been widely used.

  Moved the detail to the body. If I can remember how to do explanatory notes, I can put the information in one to further condense the prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'd move the Foster cite out of the lead - it'd be odd to have it be the only cite there

  You're right, I missed that it hadn't been removed. Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Change the end of the final sentence to ; several remain in operation. (since the current wording makes it sound like the private owners are in operation, not the locomotives)

  Good catch, changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Design and production

• It seems strange to have the plans to abandon electrification not mentioned until the operations section, as that was a major impetus for the design.

  Will work on this. I picked up a new book on the FL9 at the Big E train show last month and I've only now had an opportunity to really read through it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Moved mention of this into design and production. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Link to traction motor

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• EMD F-units --> EMD F-unit family

  Reworded to "EMD F-unit line" to match that article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• It's confusing to have the different weights for the two types be mentioned before the two types are explained.

  Let me think on how to rearrange this information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Moved mention of the weight of 2030 - 2059 to the appropriate location in the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Link "over-running" to Third rail#Shoe contact

  Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Explain why the locomotives would be using Penn Station (I presume trains running through to PRR territory?)

  The practice of all intercity trains calling at Grand Central didn't come about until Amtrak. Looking through my sources for more information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  One of my sources explicitly states that some trains called at Penn Station rather than Grand Central (but most were bound for GCT), so I've tried to make that clearer in the text. I don't have anything that says a specific reason why this was the case. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Spell out 28 at the beginning of the sentence

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Their first stop was the... --> They were first sent to the...

  Reworded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• What were the pantographs drawing power from? The text makes it sound like they were using the third rail, but that doesn't make sense to me.

  Overhead lines were installed at strategic locations in the terminal tracks where large groups of switches prevented third rail from being installed. The idea was that if a locomotive stalled in one of the gaps, a pantograph could be raised to restore locomotive power rather than a rescue locomotive having to be dispatched. Added more information from a new source which I recently obtained a copy of. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Any information about the cost of the second order?

  Doing... I need to look into this further. Price for the first order came from contemporary Trains Magazine articles, so I may need to dive back into the archives to find this information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

   Done I had to dig through newspapers.com to find a cost, but the Bridgeport Post in 1960 quotes a price of $8,310,000 for the second order. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Hyphen after "Matter"

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• I would move the final paragraph to the design section

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Split the second paragraph of "production and testing" in two - it's rather long currently. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  Split. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Operation

• I would retitle this "New Haven operation" for clarity. Or have that be a subsection, and make the "Penn Central and beyond" section also a subsection (which is probably my preference)

  Changed the headers so the whole section is "Operating history" with subheaders "New Haven operation", "Penn Central and beyond", and "Rebuilds and retirements". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Reduce this to one image, maybe two if you really insist. I think the Providence image is the strongest and the Warehouse Point image the weakest.

  I cut the Warehouse Point image. It's a neat photo but the FL9 is rather far from the camera. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• I swear there's a Shoreliner article somewhere that discusses the de-electrification plans, but I can't find it for the life of me. Will keep looking.
• Sentence starting Once the FL9s were delivered... needs to be rewritten slightly - right now the final clause is confusing.

  Rewrote into two sentences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• an EP-5 could produce --> an EP-5 could also produce

  Word added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'd write out "eleven" just to make it clear it's not part of the locomotive class

  Sure, done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Link to Cape Codder (NH train) (which covers all of the NYC-Cape Cod trains)

  Linked in the prose and the NH advertisement. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Other railroads operating into...: I would split this in two, and have it list railroad-line-railroad-line rather than railroad-railroad-line-line

  Rewrote the sentence and added a new one about PRR testing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Split the second paragraph in two (probably after ...loss for the railroad.

  Split. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Penn Central and beyond

• Consider replacing the PC image with this image, or cropping the existing image to focus on the locomotive

  I'd prefer not cropping the image, as it takes away from the scene and feels disrespectful to the original photographer. When clicking on the image, it's large enough you can see the relevant detail (the changed number). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Move the Amtrak image down to the rebuilds subsection

  A flaw of visual editor is that it isn't always clear where images are. I thought it was there already, but moved it there for real. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• The first two sentences are confusing - "ceased operations" implied that operations ended, rather than being transferred more-or-less intact to Penn Central.

  Rewrote the first sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if the mention of other locomotives on the Shore Line is relevant, unless that was part of the FL9s being freed up for other lines

  Yes, the importance of this is that FL9s began to migrate to lines in New York State, and the source draws a direct connection between them. Does this need to be made more explicit? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Did Penn Central eliminate half of all New Haven trains? Or just on certain lines? Looking at my timetables, I think it may have just been NYC-Boston trains and maybe NYC-Springfield that got cut.

  The source says "PC attacked New Haven's massive passenger-service losses by "restructuring" schedules a month after takeover, which cut train frequency by about one-half." I don't feel confident in specifying certain lines without more information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm, that's very strange. The only cutbacks in that period I could find news about were on Feb 2, 1969, where weekday NYC-Boston was reduced from 13.5 to 8 round trips, and NYC-Springfield from 12 to 9. Perhaps the author was thinking of Saturday service, which was cut approximately in half. I would have the sentence end ...sharply reducing service frequency in February 1969. with those newspaper cites added. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've revised the sentence and cited that clipping. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• There's some inconsistency about whether "New York Central" and "Penn Central" are spelled out or abbreviated. No preference between the two, but it should be consistent.

  I don't know that this has to be consistent (Providence and Worcester Railroad doesn't do this and that article passed FAC), but I did consistently spell out Penn Central. A search for "NYC" gives me no results in the article's text. I avoided use of NYC since it could be confused with New York City. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Clarify that the Amtrak leased units were for Empire Service trains serving points north - the current wording makes it sound like they were for Croton locals.

  Clarified. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• as needed for Hudson Line service: clarify that this was for Amtrak service over the Hudson Line, not Hudson Line commuter service

  Clarified. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• I would combine the two short paragraphs beginning Penn Central retired units ... and Amtrak addressed the age...

  I don't think this is a good idea because there's a topic switch in between. Right after the subheader the text goes into talking about rebuilds. Penn Central retiring units and transferring the rest to other owners when Conrail was formed is a different topic in my mind. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  The sentences Several of Amtrak's units... and Amtrak addressed the age of its FL9s... seem connected to me, but I won't insist on this. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• Link "AC traction" to AC motor

  Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Introduce the FL9AC designation

  I'm not sure I follow. I specifically call out "all of which were designated FL9AC after rebuilding". They weren't FL9AC locomotives until the rebuilding took place. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Whoops, you're right. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• Amtrak replaced its six FL9s...: need to reorder this sentence. MTV may love the 1990s, but I don't think the decade had dual-power capability.

  I see how that could be misinterpreted. Reordered. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Any details why they lost their third rail capability?

  Not elaborated on in Swanberg 2015. That's the only comprehensive source that's recent enough to cover the final years of FL9 service. I'll keep looking, but no promises. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Gotcha. Would be nice to know (and I'm certainly curious), but it's a minor-enough detail that it's okay to not have an explanation. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• The farewell train isn't mentioned in the prose, so I'm not sure it's the most relevant image, especially since it's outside usual territory. This image would be useful for illustrating the heritage livery that started with the FL9s.

  There was some unsourced prose about the farewell train before, which I cut out because I couldn't find any source for it. I agree that image is a lot better, so I've swapped images. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Original owners

• Remove this as redundant.

  Removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Surviving examples

• The list is partially 2015 status, partially current status. Either have it be current status only, or have it be 2015 status with subsequent history as relevant (my preference). There's also a bit of cruft to trim. I may have follow-up suggestions after this is done.

  The Classic Trains source specifies 22 surviving units but does not detail all of their numbers or locations. I've done the best I can with available sources. Will work on reorganizing, but I could use suggestions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Definitely a lot better now. Having acquisition dates for the units that currently don't have them would be nice, but the section is fine for GA as is.

• Reduce this section to two images - I recommend the Danbury museum shot plus perhaps this shot.

  Cut some images, thinking about which ones I want to have in this section ultimately. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Too much detail about #2019. We don't need to know the one-week use or the train name.

  Cut some of the detail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Have the two RMNE entries be sub-bullets of a single bullet

  Done. There were three FL9s at the museum at one point, but it looks like one has since gone to Ohio. I can't find any reliable sources on its current whereabouts or the fact that it left the RMNE (beyond it no longer being on the RMNE website). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

• Don't say "currently". Several items need as-of dates (or acquisition dates etc)
  •  Done

In popular culture

I would remove this section. The Superman item is USERGENERATED trivia, and having models available is so common that I don't think it needs noted.

• I'm not generally a fan of "in popular culture" sections, but I do have an interesting bit in Diesels to Park Avenue where Class of '44 featured a Canadian National FP7 with its nose dressed in a knock-off New Haven scheme looking extremely similar to an FL9. Not sure that merits mention in this article though. On the other hand, I think mentioning the models is relevant. Rapido is the only manufacturer to tackle the FL9, and I did include models when I wrote GE 25-ton switcher. The section likely needs removal, and the brief mention of the Rapido models could be placed elsewhere in the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've deleted the mention of the movie and moved the sentence about models elsewhere in the body for now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

See also

• I don't see what the GMD list or the British Rail locomotive have to do with this article.

  Seems they have the same arrangement of trucks and axles, but I don't think that's particularly relevant especially since the FL9 has an unpowered axle and that British Rail locomotive has all powered axles. Removed it from the see also. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Remove P32, as it's already linked in the article.

  I actually added that back in 2021 when it wasn't mentioned in the article. Removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Might be worth linking to the DM30AC in the article (when the failed FL9AC rebuilds are discussed), in which case this section could be done away with entirely. (The EMD list isn't worth having a section all to itself.)

  I have an issue here where sources disagree. The Classic Trains Magazine article dismisses the FL9AC rebuilds as a failure, while Diesels to Park Avenue calls them a success (on LIRR at least) and a direct inspiration for the DM30AC order (they just write "the order of dual-mode locomotives from General Motors which are due in 1998" but it's obvious what they are referring to). That source also mentions that gaps in the third rail would cause the onboard computer systems to shut off and then restart. Working on how to incorporate the DM30AC into the prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  Now resolved. Turns out the DM30AC is explicitly mentioned a few pages later. I've deleted the see also section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Citations

Citation numbers are from this version.

• Add ISSN for print Trains articles

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• The article is currently in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors, so something needs fixed.

  Caught two footnotes that were not in Sfn format, so I've converted them. Hopefully that resolves the issue. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Move the Commonscat (and the useless portal link) down to External links

  Moved the Commons cat, deleted the portal link since it's pretty dead and hasn't been updated in years it seems. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Make date styles consistent

  Everything should be in the same style now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Citations 50, 52, 54, 55, and 57 need cleanup and/or are missing parameters

  I think I attended to all the issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'd recommend archiving all the listings on the sites of current owners, as those are liable to change.

  These should now all have links to archive links. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Overall

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline 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:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.