Talk:Grizzly Flats Railroad

Technopedia Center

Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science
S1 Informatics S1 Information Systems S1 Information Technology S1 Computer Engineering S1 Electrical Engineering S1 Civil Engineering

faculty of Economics and Business
S1 Management S1 Accountancy

Faculty of Letters and Educational Sciences
S1 English literature S1 English language education S1 Mathematics education S1 Sports Education

Talk:Grizzly Flats Railroad - Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grizzly Flats Railroad article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Grizzly Flats Railroad has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 5, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 16, 2018.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Grizzly Flats Railroad, owned by Disney animator Ward Kimball, was the first full-size backyard railroad in the United States?

Disney Low‑importance

	Disney portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies 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.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	April 1, 2009
Sel	week 28, 2018

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.

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Grizzly Flats Railroad.

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.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

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

Reviewer: RickyCourtney (talk · contribs) 07:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. --RickyCourtney (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2017 (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.	Article is well written and is a fascinating read.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead does a good job of both summarizing and setting the stage for the broader article.
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.	Article is well referenced.
	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).	Sources look good but without access to the physical books, it’s impossible to double check on this point.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article appears to contain no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Run through copyvio detector came back clean.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects are covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused without straying too far beyond the primary topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is uncontoversial and coverage is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
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.	The fair use image, while a very good illustrative image, lacks a good source. I feel like we need to know who the photographer is. @RickyCourtney: The image in question has been replaced by a different image on Wikimedia Commons. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 14:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] Looks good, thanks. --RickyCourtney (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and have good captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass - Article looks good, as a native Southern Californian, a railfan and a fan of the Disney theme parks, this was a facinating read. I never knew about this facinating bit of history. One item for editors to keep an eye on the developments on the Justi Creek Railway page. It appears that the depot building and water tower may have been destroyed by the October 2017 Northern California wildfires. At this point, it seems a better source needs to be cited before including that information on this page. --RickyCourtney (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

"Grizzly Flats"

Am curious, where did the name of "Grizzly Flats" come from?

I think the origin of the name would make an interesting addition to the entry. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, it was named after a California ghost town of the same name. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 13:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyed depot and water tower reliable source

Is there a reliable source about the water tower and depot building destroyed? I know they're all on forums and they were cited as unreliable. How about this link?: http://thundermesa.studio/2018/02/introducing-the-carolwood-grizzly-flats-railroad/ Trainsfan1331 (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsfan1331: First off, thank you for bringing this up. I have had no success with finding a legit source for this piece of info, also (I fear that we are not going to find one until several years down the road when someone authors another book on the topic). The one that you found is not suitable because there is no evidence of editorial oversight. If you click on the "About the Artist" link on his blog, he describes himself as a "one man shop." There needs to be someone looking over the author's shoulder (chief editor, publisher, etc.) in order for it to be considered a quality source. Most online sources like this one will have an About section that will typically indicate whether it's a one-man effort or a team effort. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 01:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, thank you. :( Trainsfan1331 (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible correction to system diagram

The system diagram notes a "Roundhouse" but the building shown in the picture is pretty clearly not a roundhouse (which would normally be built around a turntable, a feature that doesn't appear to be included on this line). The building is an enginehouse, definitely, but not a roundhouse. 8.19.241.10 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In American parlance, the word "roundhouse" can refer to any locomotive storage facility (especially those used by steam locomotives) regardless of shape. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 16:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Nevada locomotive's last run in the 1950s or 60s?

Okay, from what I understand is that Ward Kimball stopped operating his Emma Nevada locomotive due to his neighbors' complaining about the coal smoke it created. According to multiple news and articles, the Emma Nevada last ran in the 1950s or 60s. My guess is the 60s, because I've seen 1960s photos of it running despite Kimball's neighbors' criticism. I'm just curious. Trainsfan1331 (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories: