This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Looking at the changes to Rio Grande 268 and I don't feel like the added citations fix the core issues. A few of my concerns (from the latest February 20th revision):
Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request: | |||
I read through this, so I'm going to quickly address some points. I also read the dispute on your talk pages as well, because I needed to piece together what else was going on.
|
Please state your arguments and, please, don't comment on each other, only on the dispute at hand. Plese keep it to a paragraph. Please refrain from another WP:WALLOFTEXT, and don't call edits malicious
DarmaniLink (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
The information in the current edits of Rio Grande 223 and prior revisions here in Rio Grande 268 bloated the article with conjecture and caused scope creep by expanding the history of the articles beyond the scope on the engines. I find the current revision of the 268 page good, but am concerned by the continued need to keep re-adding that text back to the 223 page. Broad claims such as "The era of the engine's MOST importance" and other issues continue to stand out to me as more opinion based than fact. Ultimately, such claims on railroad history backed up by poor third party sources; do not belong on either page and hamper readability and muddy the purpose of the page. DTParker1000's continued effort to restore the text to these pages does more harm than good to the articles. --Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DarmaniLink (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]