Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Superliner (railcar)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2017.

Superliner (railcar)

 * Nominator(s): Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The Superliner is a bilevel intercity railcar employed by Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator in the United States. The first cars entered service in 1979 and are the backbone of Amtrak's fleet west of the Mississippi River. Their design descends from the revolutionary Budd Hi-Level. I completed a substantial expansion in January 2017 and the article was promoted to GA in June. Mackensen (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * "After a grade crossing accident in 1999 the Transportation Safety Board of Canada faulted the layout on the lower level; the exterior door, when opened and locked in position, prevented egress from the wheelchair-accessible bathroom.": It's not clear what one has to do with the other.
 * See WP:LQ. I fixed them all this time.
 * "Amtrak will make the roomettes closest to the upper level end door available for sale to passengers": Have they done this yet? If not, who believes they will do it soon, and why?
 * Clarified the ambiguity; Amtrak doesn't always make those rooms available for sale. Mackensen (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "in 1984–85": Does this mean during a 12-month fiscal year that overlaps 1984 and 1985? If it means "in 1984 and 1985", then say it that way, to keep it unambiguous.
 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

 * General
 * The images need alt text.
 * Added. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Background
 * ¶1 "the bilevel design was well-suited to the long distances in the west" – What specific characteristics made it more well-suited than the single-level design?
 * Explained a little further. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Design
 * ¶1 "The Superliners also used 480 volt head-end power (HEP), which Amtrak had just adopted as its standard." – The link to head-end power is helpful, but I think a non-technical note or in-text sentence that briefly explains why HEP was better than older systems would be helpful too.
 * Added a brief note on this. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That does the job. Finetooth (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Coaches
 * Caption: "The exterior of a Superliner I coach. Note the full row of windows along the upper level seating area." – The Manual of Style recommends avoiding imperatives such as "note" that tell readers to do something. Better would be "The exterior of a Superliner I coach has a full row of windows along the upper level seating area."
 * Changed. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Lounges
 * Caption: "Superliner I lounge No. 33014. Note the curved windows." – Another imperative. Suggestion: "A Superliner I's lounge has windows that curve over parts of the ceiling."
 * Changed. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Superliner I
 * "Vistaliner" (harkening back to the "Vista-Domes" – I don't think you need quotation marks around Vistaliner or Vista-Domes.
 * Okay. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Equipping the fleet
 * ¶1 "The following day, the Shawnee had the dubious distinction of the first accident with Superliners after a minor collision with an Illinois Central Gulf Railroad freight train." – Trim slightly? Suggestion: The following day, the Shawnee had the dubious distinction of the first Superliner accident, a minor collision with an Illinois Central Gulf Railroad freight train.
 * Changed. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * ¶2 "often encountered harsh weather conditions which sidelined traditional steam-heated equipment..." – Such as? What stopped working and at what temperature?
 * Expanded on this a bit. I've experienced a North Dakota winter in a Superliner on the Empire Builder, and it's still no picnic. Snowstorms, frozen switches, etc. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, it's good to be inside going across Montana and North Dakota in winter. I never took this particular train until well after 1979. Finetooth (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Superliner II
 * ¶2 "A report published by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada in 2002 faulted design aspects of the Superliner and indicated that they were withdrawn for that reason." – What design aspects troubled the board?
 * Clarified; it's also discussed in "Coaches" section. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks good. Finetooth (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * References
 * Some of the titles are in title case, while others are in sentence case. It's best to make them consistent, either all title case or all sentence case.
 * I'd followed, wherever possible, how the sources themselves used it. I'm happy to follow whatever the MOS recommends on that score. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It may just be my penchant for internal consistency. I've looked and looked for the MOS guideline that I think I'm remembering, but I can't find it, and it may not exist. Maybe it never existed. That being the case, I'm striking my suggestion.


 * That's all. Finetooth (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good to me. Having traveled on many Amtrak routes, I found this quite interesting. Happy to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius
I'll add comments as I go through the article. epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In the lead:
 * Paragraph 3: Is there a source for "Tunnel clearances prevent their use on the Northeast Corridor" later in the article? I see in the "Design" section that the Superliners used to not go east of Chicago because of clearances. But there is nothing about the NE corridor, although the reference itself doesn't need to be in the lead per WP:CITELEAD.
 * Added a specific citation about the NEC. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In "Background":
 * Para 1:
 * "It retained approximately 184 of the 440 trains which had run the day before." What happened to the other trains? Honest question.
 * They were discontinued. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "To operate these trains, Amtrak inherited a fleet of 300 locomotives (electric and diesel) and 1190 passenger cars" → To operate these trains, Amtrak inherited a fleet of 300 electric and diesel locomotives as well as 1,190 passenger cars (so that it avoids the clunky parenthesis, and also to add the comma in "1,190" for clarity)
 * Dropped "electric and diesel" because it's not necessary there, and added the comma. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Para 2:
 * Should it be "requests for proposals"? I hear "RFP" being used all the time, but only ever in the plural form.
 * The internal article is singular. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can reword the phrase "it 'was assumed' that the design would be bilevel" because that two-word quoted section looks unwieldy. Also, it's unclear who assumed this. I suggest paraphrasing, like ______ supposed that the design would be bilevel where the blank is filled in, or some supposed.... But you don't have to reword this if it's more impactful to have the quote instead.
 * I've clarified who thought this was the case. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "The design was finished by mid-1974 and Amtrak invited four companies to bid on its construction: Boeing, Budd, Pullman-Standard, and Rohr, with Pullman-Standard winning the contract." → The design was finished by mid-1974 and Amtrak invited four companies to bid on its construction (Boeing, Budd, Pullman-Standard, and Rohr), with Pullman-Standard winning the contract. or → The design was finished by mid-1974 and Amtrak invited four companies to bid on its construction—Boeing, Budd, Pullman-Standard, and Rohr—with Pullman-Standard winning the contract. (I feel like this is an interjective statement.)
 * Works for me. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In "Design":
 * Para 3: "The Superliner has a maximum speed..." Do you mean both models?
 * Yes. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In "Coaches":
 * Para 1: "15 passengers on the lower level (later reduced to 12)". Two things: Why was the lower level capacity reduced to 12 passengers? And the parentheses are unwieldy. How about 15 passengers on the lower level, with the lower level's capacity later reduced to 12.
 * Copyedited. I'm not sure what caused the reduction. If I had to guess it was related to ADA compliance. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Para 3: " Integral blinds were rejected in favor of curtains on maintenance grounds. An upper level of "skylight" windows, similar to those on the Sun Lounge cars, was rejected as too expensive. " → Integral blinds were rejected in favor of curtains on maintenance grounds, while an upper level of "skylight" windows, similar to those on the Sun Lounge cars, was rejected as too expensive. (I guess these are both about rejected features so I combined them)
 * Much better, adopted. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In "Sleeping cars":
 * Para 5: "To one side of the stairs are three bathrooms and one shower. To the other are four more roomettes." → To one side of the stairs are three bathrooms and one shower, and to the other are four more roomettes. (this comparison style is usually a single sentence)
 * Fixed. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In "Lounges":
 * Para 3: "These cars may be distinguished" → These cars are distinguished (unless I am wrong and some of the Superliner I cars are exactly the same as the Sightseers)
 * In this case we're talking specifically about the converted dining cars and how they differ from the S-I and S-II lounges. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

More to come later, but so far it looks like solid work. epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. I'll follow up with more feedback tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Picking up from where I left off.
 * Didn't see any issues in "Dining cars", "Transition sleepers", or "Summary".
 * In "History" - "Superliner I":
 * Para 1:
 * For the phrase "... deliveries scheduled for January 1977 – June 1978", it is awkward to have the endash when this is part of the prose instead of part of a timeline. I suggest deliveries scheduled for between January 1977 and June 1978
 * Reworded. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you know the new 284-car breakdown? How many more of each car was ordered?
 * Added. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Para 2: There are two parenthetical statements that I think could be worded differently, because too many parenthetical statements in prose can be distracting. For instance, The name "Superliner" was chosen by Needham, Harper & Steers, who was Amtrak's advertising agency at the time, and announced in 1977 and the winning entry, Vistaliner—harkening back to the Vista-Domes of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad—was already under copyright by another company. But this is just a suggestion because I understand "Needham, Harper & Steers" and "Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad" already have commas within them.
 * Para 3:
 * Explain what "revenue service" is. I know what it is, but the non-railfan who searches this term online gets Internal Revenue Service as the first link, which is totally different.
 * Changed to "regular". Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "Illini (April) and Shawnee (June) trains"? It sounds like either the trains first ran in these months, or these are the months when Illini and Shawnee operate.
 * Those were the introduction dates for the Superliners on those routes. I've moved that information into an endnote. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In "Equipping the fleet":
 * Para 3: "The design impressed the management of the Santa Fe sufficiently that they permitted Amtrak to restore the name Chief to the train, and Amtrak renamed it the Southwest Chief on October 28, 1984." My concern is the location of the word "sufficiently", or if it's the right word. Ultimately you're saying that the management was impressed enough by the design. So how about something like The management of the Santa Fe was sufficiently impressed by the design that they...
 * Santa Fe's revocation of permission to use the "Chief" trademark was an odd incident. Re-worded. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Para 4: This paragraph talks about the introduction timeline of the S-Is. The last sentence, "Amtrak estimated that reequipping a train with Superliners boosted ridership on it by 25%", doesn't quite connect to the previous sentence. How about Amtrak estimated that reequipping these trains with Superliners boosted ridership on them by 25%, since the trains without Superliners aren't being discussed here anyway.
 * Swapped the sentence order. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In "Superliner II":
 * Para 2: The last sentence, "In 2017, Amtrak identified a need to replace the Superliners, noting that each car traveled the equivalent of "seven trips around the world" every year", probably belongs in its own paragraph. Again, this doesn't seem to flow smoothly with the previous sentences in the paragraph, which are about which trains the Superliners ran on. But since it's one sentence, you may want to expand it. Are there any definite replacement plans, cost estimates, etc? That might be good info to add.
 * It could probably be struck altogether. At this point there's nothing firm. The hope was that the Next Generation Bi-Level Passenger Rail Car would provide a basis for a future Superliner III order, but that project has turned into a fiasco. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It seems like a good topic to expand on, but if there's really not enough info about a proposed replacement, I think we should just leave it be. epicgenius (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That's it for now. epicgenius (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll give this a second look-through tomorrow. If I don't find anything else of concern, consider this my support !vote.epicgenius (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My final thoughts:
 * In "Background" para 4: the sentence "Amtrak invited four companies to bid on its construction–Boeing, Budd, Pullman-Standard, and Rohr–with Pullman-Standard winning the contract" is using unspaced endashes. To fit dash convention, I suggest to either replace these with spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes.
 * In "Design" para 1: "480 volt" should be 480-volt.
 * In "Sleeping cars" para 3: "The family bedroom is found at one end of the lower level of the car" is awkward; I suggest The family bedroom is located at one end of the car's lower level or similar.
 * In "Dining cars" para 1 (didn't catch this earlier, sorry): Isn't "drink" in "food and drink" supposed to be plural? As in A dumbwaiter is used to bring food and drinks to the dining level. This is an actual question.
 * That's it. Once these are fixed, I can support. epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've copyedited; as far as food and drink go I think either usage is correct. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing these. I officially support this nomination. epicgenius (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review
A couple of points:
 * What basis is being used for the inclusion or otherwise of access dates in references? It seems to me that there are numerous missing access dates.
 * Why are some Amtrak refs in short citation format and others not?

No spotchecks carried out. It seems that the sources used are of appropriate authority and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that access dates are necessary for online sources whose content could change; they don't make sense for books or journal articles.
 * That's correct up to a point. But when the article has been transposed to a website – the NYT article in ref 20 is one example – the text might be slightly different from the original print source. In my experience this is quite often the case. In effect, you are citing a website rather than a journal, thus an access date is necessary.  Brianboulton (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added access dates for when we're looking at a transcription as opposed to a scan of the original text. Mackensen (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I used short citations for two multipage reports where Amtrak is the corporate author and no individual author is given. I've converted two others now; the 1975 annual report and the 1990 fleet brochure. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I notice that there are few duplinks in this article. These should be checked to see if they can be fixed, or if they are necessary. However, it isn't worth holding this up, and I will promote this shortly. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.