Talk:GE E60/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 23:00, 9 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) 23:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Design

 * General. I have reviewed a number of articles recently which had very long sentences with little punctuation, but parts of this article are at the other exteme. There are a lot of very short sentences, and it gives a staccato effect when you read it. It is also very densely packed with numerical details, and in order to provide a sense of flow, needs some more words, and some conjunctions to join the short sentences into longer ones.
 * GE designed the E60C for use on... We need to know who GE are, and the fact that it is a C-C electric locomotive, here as well as in the lead. Was it actually designed for the BM&LP, in view of the small number of units ordered, or was it a development of a previous design?
 * ✅ Rewrote the paragraph to make this clearer. Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Ref 21 (GAO 1976, p. 31) says that the E-60 was a variation of the EE-50. Bob1960evens (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd run across that and found it puzzling. I've been unable to corroborate that anywhere, let alone prove the existence of such a locomotive. I have to assume it's a misprint, but sources like McSparran which discuss the design of E60 in depth don't ever mention previous designs. That's not dispositive of course. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * an isolated 78 miles (125.5 km) line... Convert needs the adj=on switch, to read "an isolated 78-mile (125.5 km) line..."
 * ✅ Rewrote the paragraph to make this clearer. Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The BM&LP is electrified at 50 kV 60 Hz AC. It was the first such electrification in the world. Suggest "The BM&LP is electrified at 50 kV 60 Hz AC, and was the first such electrification to use this voltage in the world." so we know what the "such" refers to.
 * ✅ Rewrote the paragraph to make this clearer. Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thyristor rectifiers step down the AC to six GE780 traction motors, two per axle. Suggest a bit of expansion. So: "Thyristor rectifiers step down the high-voltage AC to provide DC power at a much lower voltage to six GE780 traction motors..." Do we know what voltage the motors use? The "two per axle" does not tie up with the fact that the locomotive has a C-C designation, which implies 6 axles, all powered, and that would require 12 motors.
 * ✅ Rewrote the paragraph. McSparran does not specify the voltage of the traction motors. Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A gearing of 85:21... "Gearing" links to "gear ratio", and the use of "a gear ratio", rather than "a gearing" would read much better.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The wheels had a diameter of 42 in (1,067 mm). In view of the comment further down that 40 inches was "more standard", some mention here that 42 inches was unusual would seem appropriate.
 * ✅; explained why. Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The starting tractive effort was 125,000 lbf (556 kN); continuous 77,000 lbf (343 kN). "continuous 77,000 lbf" is not a self-contained phrase, so cannot follow a semicolon in this way. Suggest "In order to work with heavy freight trains, the starting tractive effort was 125,000 lbf (556 kN), which reduces to 77,000 lbf (343 kN) when the train is moving." or similar. Again, a few extra words makes the content less dense and much more readable.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The starting tractive effort was a considerably lower 75,000 lbf (334 kN)... Not convinced that "a considerably lower" works as a compound adjective, and it should be hyphenated if it is. How about "The starting tractive effort was considerably lower at 75,000 lbf (334 kN)..." or similar.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The design came in two variants: the E60CP had steam generators... Suggest that this needs to mention that the steam generators powered the heating systems on older passenger equipment, while head-end power powered both heating and air conditioning.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * NdeM adopted 25 kV 60 Hz electrification, while the Deseret-Western Railway, like the Black Mesa and Lake Powell, adopted 50 kV 60 Hz AC. It is not obvious what "NdeM" is. The start of the paragraph needs to introduce the Acronym, so "Ferrocarriles Nacionales de México (NdeM)" The Deseret-Western Railway is mentioned without any context at all. We have no idea why this is relevant, so it needs some further introduction.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

History

 * Black Mesa and Lake Powell Railroad
 * a typical train featured three locomotives working in multiple. Suggest we need a few more details. One of the refs mentions 56 trucks, loaded with 100 tons of coal each, which would provide some context for why three locomotives were needed.
 * ✅ Added discussion of planned weight from McSparran. Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Union Pacific Railroad used the E60 as a benchmark... Are any details of what this means available?
 * ✅ I've removed this. The Class Is were thinking about electrification in the 1970s and the planned studies tended to use the E60C as the locomotive. It doesn't belong in the BM&LP section, and I don't have enough material to write it up separately. Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The BM&LP acquired six former Ferrocarriles Nacionales de México E60C-2s... Do we know a date or approximate date for the acquisition? This would help us to assess how long the original locomotives lasted. Since the new locomotives worked on a different voltage, was any conversion work necessary?
 * ✅ After 1997 (TFM discontinues electrification) and before 2001 (Middleton publishes the second edition). I've added a note. I couldn't find anything more specific. They must have been converted, but no source discusses it. Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Amtrak and New Jersey Transit
 * The initial mix was 15 CPs and 11 CHs, but Amtrak switched 9 of CPs to HEP... The use of so many abbreviations makes the text a bit geekish. Suggest explaining it in words. Suggest "The initial order was for 15 locomotives with steam generators and 11 with head-end power, but 9 of the first type were switched to using head-end power..." or similar.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The E60s began arriving in November 1974; they were the first locomotives to carry Amtrak's Phase II livery. Problems soon developed; the locomotives yawed sideways when accelerating... Again, conjunctions rather than semicolons would help the flow of the text. So "The E60s began arriving in November 1974, when they became the first locomotives to carry Amtrak's Phase II livery. Problems soon developed, as the locomotives yawed sideways when accelerating..."
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * acquisition of the successful EMD AEM-7. Suggest a bit of context. So: "acquisition of the successful EMD AEM-7, a twin-cab B-B electric locomotive produced by Electro-Motive Division." or similar.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * they were used on heavy, long-distance trains, such as the Crescent, Silver Service, and Montrealer. Some details of where these trains operate, rather than just their names, would provide a bit of context.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The ABB ALP-44 displaced the E60 in New Jersey Transit service by 1998. Suggest expanding this a little, with some details of what the ABB ALP-44 is, and who built it.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ferrocarriles Nacionales de México
 * ...sparked interest from several commuter operators, including Caltrain and GO Transit. Needs some context. So: "...including Caltrain in California and GO Transit in southern Ontario, Canada." or similar.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 *  to serve the company's Martin Lake line, displacing GE E25Bs. Do we know anything about what a GE E25B is? Since it is a red link, the reader cannot find out anything more.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That is the text reviewed. The issues this time around are more to do with context and flow of the text, rather than grammar. If anything is not clear, do let me know. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead should introduce the subject, and summarise the main points of the article. It does this reasonably well.


 * By the end of the 1970s Amtrak abandoned the E60 in favor of the EMD AEM-7. This is a bit cryptic for the lead. Suggest "By the end of the 1970s Amtrak abandoned the E60 in favor of EMD AEM-7 locomotives manufactured by Electro-Motive Division."
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be worth mentioning that NdeM locomotives were sold on to various mining railroads.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:27, 11 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 concluded. Do let me know if anything is not clear. I will put the article on hold. I have to say that I think your reworking of the Design section has improved the article immensely. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I'm indebted to your excellent suggestions. You're making me a better writer in the process. I believe I've addressed everything. Mackensen (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that all of the issues have been addressed, and am pleased to be able to award the article GA status. I am glad that you have found the process helpful. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)