Talk:Amfleet/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 17:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, and return to the lead at the end. Can I suggest that you mark any issues fixed with comments or maybe the ✅ template. I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the text difficult to read at a later date, and it is an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Background

 * The first paragraph uses "Amtrak" four times. Suggest a bit of variation: they/the company, etc.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Design
 * The windows on the Amfleet Is were 18 by 64 inches... Suggest "Amfleet 1 cars were 18 by 64 inches..." as the Is is too similar to "is".
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Amfleet I has chemical flush toilets; while the Amfleet II has retention toilets. "while" follows a comma, but not a semicolon.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * to the floor level 51 1⁄2 inches (1.31 m). The clause after a semicolon needs a verb, so suggest "to the floor level is 51 1⁄2 inches (1.31 m)."
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Coaches
 * Amfleet seats have swing-down tray-tables for at-seat food service, overhead and underseat luggage storage. The "and" joins two types of storage, rather than three items in a list. Suggest "Amfleet seats have swing-down tray-tables for at-seat food service, as well as overhead and underseat luggage storage." or similar.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Under the Capstone refurbishment program... The Capstone program needs some context, so we know what it is.
 * I've yet to find an available source which discusses the program in detail. I know, based on things I've read, that it was a large-scale refurbishment program launched around the time Amtrak procured the Acela trainsets. Secondary literature refers to it often, but not in detail. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Club cars
 * Budd built 40 Amfleet I "Amclub" club/parlor cars. The use of the slash is not recommended (see WP:MOS) as it suggests a connection between club and parlor but does not specify what that connection is. Explain the connection in words.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Most clubs were rebuilt as club-dinette cars; with one half given over to booths and the other 2×1 seating. The semicolon should be a comma, as it precedes a conjunction. The final clause needs a verb. Suggest "...and the other having 2×1 seating." or similar.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Lounges
 * on the longer side ten four-seat booths. Improper clause after a semicolon again. Suggest "the longer side had ten four-seat booths."
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

History

 * Amtrak heralded their arrival, calling 1975 as "the Year of the Amfleet". Suggest "as" is not needed.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * restricted by the availability of locomotives with HEP or special generator cars. HEP is an acronym, and needs introducing. So, the first paragraph of Design should be "operated by head-end power (HEP) from the locomotive."
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The first non-Northeast Corridor train to receive Amfleets was the Blue Ridge, on December 1. "non-Northeast Corridor train" does not read well. Suggest "The first train (route?) outside of the Northeast Corridor to receive Amfleets was the Blue Ridge, on December 1." Suggest that Blue Ridge also needs some context, so "between Washington, D.C. and Martinsburg" or similar.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * These cars, dubbed Amfleet II, were intended to replace rolling stock on Amtrak long-distance trains, featuring larger windows, more legroom, and folding legrests. "Featuring" is wrong in this context. Suggest "and featured", if you want to leave that clause at the end.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * On long-distance single-level trains Amfleet cars mixed with Heritage Fleet cars, supplemented in the 1990s by Viewliner sleeping cars. Does not quite make sense. Try reworking.
 * ✅ Reworded a little. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Amfleet Is had travelled an average of 4,125,000 miles (6,638,544 km); the Amfleet IIs 5,640,000 miles (9,076,700 km). The clause after the semicolon does not stand on its own, so needs reworking.
 * ✅ Used a comma instead. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That is the text reviewed. Most of the issues are fairly trivial gramatical ones. I will move on to reviewing the references next. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead should introduce and summarise the main points of the article. As such it feels a little sparse for an article of this length. I suggest it should include something about the two types (Amfleet I and II), distinguishable by window size, head end power, restricted rollout because of this, and maybe the winter of 1976-1977.
 * ✅ Expanded. Mackensen (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The formal bit

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See comments above
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * That is the review completed. You already seem to have addressed most of the issues raised. Just a couple left. I will put the article on hold, and look forward to being able to award it GA status in due course. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe I've addressed everything. I appreciate your thorough reviews; they're helpful to me as a writer. Mackensen (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It is all looking good. I made a couple of minor tweaks (removed the word "train", and added 2011 to a Simon & Warner ref), and agree that all issues have now been addressed. I am therefore pleased to award the article GA status. Congratulations, and keep up the good editing! Bob1960evens (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)