Talk:Superliner (railcar)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 11:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, returning to the lead at the end. Please indicate when issues have been addressed with comments or possibly 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) 11:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Background

 * Amtrak retained approximately 184 of the 440 trains... Suggest "They retained...", as it gets a bit monotonous reading Amtrak every time.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Most these were conventional single-level, but Amtrak had also inherited 73 Hi-Levels from the Santa Fe Suggest "single-level cars" and "73 Hi-Level cars" to avoid it sounding geekish.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Design

 * and were "were notorious for their rough riding characteristics". Remove one of the "were"s.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * also found on the Horizon. Suggest "also found on the Horizon single-level cars."
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the Superliner I cars were retrofitted... Additionally doesn't work in this context. Try "Subsequently", or just omit the word.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Initially the cars could not be worked east of Chicago... This is a single sentence paragraph. Suggest merging with the following one, or expanding a little.
 * ✅; re-ordered Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Coaches
 * similar to those on the Sun Lounges, Suggest "Sun Lounge cars".
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * rejected as too expensive but incorporated into the Sightseer lounges. At this point we have no idea what a Sightseer louge is. It needs a few words of explanation here, rather than leaving the reader to discover the details two sections down.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * and were assigned to the Coast Starlight. Suggest "Coast Starlight train" on first occurrence.
 * ✅ Explained what the train was, per your suggestion below. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Caltrans paid to rebuild six wrecked Superliner I coaches... Caltrans needs expanding on first occurrence, so "California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)". Why were the coaches wrecked? Please clarify.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sleeping cars
 * To one side of the stairs are three bathrooms and shower. Is this one shower? Clarify.
 * ✅ One shower. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Transition sleepers
 * leading to an end door at the height of standard single-level car. Should be "...of a standard..."
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

History

 * Superliner I
 * The coaches, led by an EMD F40PH, displaced the regular Turboliner equipment on No. 337. Much too geekish. Suggest "an EMD F40PH locomotive" and replace "on No. 337" with "on the Hiawatha Service near Lake Michigan." or somesuch.
 * ✅ It's tricky; Amtrak adopted the "Turboliner" branding throughout the Midwest. I've piped and put the specific train number in the reference if anyone cares. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The Illini (April) and Shawnee (June) received Superliner coaches soon after... Suggest "The Illini (April) and Shawnee (June) trains ..."
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Equipping the fleet
 * whose Hi-Levels had inspired the design. Suggest "whose HI-Level cars..."
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Superliner II
 * and included an option for 39 cars. Suggest "39 extra cars" or somesuch. ("additional" is already used in the following sentence.)
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A project to enlarge the First Street Tunnel enabled the Cardinal... First Street Tunnel needs a bit of context here. Suggest "First Street Tunnel in Washington DC" as a minimum.
 * ✅ Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * General
 * There are a lot of named trains which are introduced with no context. The article would be considerably easier to read if the names were qualified with "train" where this is not immediately obvious from the context, and some indication of where they ran. So, for example, "Superliners were used on the International train running between Chicargo and Toronto from November 1995 until early 2000." provides context and makes the article much more accessible to readers without an intimate knowledge of American railroads.
 * ✅ This is something I need to be more mindful about, and I appreciate the nudge. Mackensen (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have completed reviewing the text. Overall, it is good, with a few minor tweaks needed. I will be reviewing the references next. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead should serve to introduce and summarise the main points of the article. It fails to do this, and needs to be expanded. I would expect three good-sized paragraphs for an article of this length. It should also mention United States, as Wikipedia has a world-wide audience, and introduces the California Car and Surfliner, which are not mentioned in the body of the article.

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:


 * I have completed the review. Nothing too onerous, I think, although the lead is never easy to get right. Do let me know if anything is unclear. I will put the article on hold, and look forward to seeing the issues addressed. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a very thorough and comprehensive review. I've endeavored to expand the lede as you suggested; I struck the mentions of the California Car and Pacific Surfliner altogether. That's a relic from before those were split out to separate articles. Regarding Ref 37, the play area is discussed in Ref 35. I can provide this source to you if necessary. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response to the review. I am happy that all of the issues raised have now been addressed. I hope you agree that mention of where the trains go makes the reading more interesting. I am pleased to confirm that I am awarding the article GA status. Congratulations, and keep up the good work. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)