Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turboliner/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2016.

Turboliner

 * Nominator(s): Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The Turboliners were a fleet of gas turbine trainsets employed by Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator in the United States, between 1973–2003. Their usage, especially latterly in the state of New York, was a matter of intense controversy in the US railfan community which previously led to stability problems in the article. I've been improving it since 2012 and it was promoted to Good Article in 2014. I've tried to avoid getting too far into the weeds on railroading terminology. Somehow after all these years this is my first FAC nomination and I acknowledge that the article may be a little short. Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments ok I'll take a look and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  They were among the first new equipment purchased by Amtrak and represented an attempt by Amtrak to update its fleet with faster, more modern trains. - you've said "Amtrak" three times in the first two sentences. I wonder if the first mention of ''Amtrak" in this sentence can go....
 * Removed. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think maybe a background section is needed before you launch into the trains - containing some material like the first sentence under the History section on the Amfleet page - just to give some context of how Amtrak was at the time and why they needed the trains. I'd move the first para of the Service section to here.


 * Excellent suggestion; I've added one. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Is the formatting right in the last sentence of the Design section?


 * It is not; fixed. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  They were retired from service after one caught fire in Pennsylvania Station in New York on September 11, 1994. - presumably because the cars were deemed faulty? Adding some material here would be helpful on the findings and closure.


 * Information on the RTG-IIs is scant (or at least not online). Appears to be poor maintenance as much as anything. I've expanded it a little. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  Additional equipment allowed Amtrak to add a frequency in late April - umm,what's a "frequency"?


 * Sorry, it's transport jargon for a round-trip. I've replaced the usage. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  In 1998 Amtrak and the state of New York began.. - should "state" be capitalised here...we're referring to the government, right?


 * We're referring to the state, and apparently per the MOS it should be capitalized. I've changed it throughout. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Also are there any turboliners that have been kept for posterity anywhere? Museums etc. Be worth mentioning at the end...


 * Not officially, no. New York sold all of its RTLs for scrap. Amtrak sold its RTGs in the mid-1990s. I believe there's one out in a cornfield in the Midwest in private hands, but it's not open to the public and I haven't seen a reliable source discussing it. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback, sorry for the delay in responding. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Now I am the one who is late - ok, looking better. A query below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You mention in the lead they were sold for scrap in 2012, yet the last sentence does not say "for scrap". Some of the reasons (i.e. storage fees etc.) would be good to add too.
 * Thanks; added a source for the scrapping and for the storage costs. Mackensen (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay then, I think I can tentatively support on comprehensiveness and prose. I don't see any prose-clangers outstanding and suspect it is comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Support. The article says what it needs to say and no more, which should be a goal for any piece of writing. Two questions and one suggestion:
 * Is there any information about the riding characteristics of the trainsets?
 * Is there information about the economics and fuel efficiency of turbine power as opposed to diesel across a wide variety of speeds?
 * Please consider a statement at the end, or even a clause, such as ". . . ending turbine train service in the United States [North America?], if that is the case.

Kablammo (talk)
 * Thank you. I'm still reviewing the technical documents; I've added David P. Morgan's impressions of the RTG. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Placeholder. I'm reading through and intend to leave a few comments but I'm leaving for work imminently so I'll revisit tomorrow. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How's it looking, Harry? Like to progress this one... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies; rough couple of weeks and I've been busy with my own nomination. I have some time this afternoon so I'll get to this now. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Images are all in order; most were uploaded by the photographer or imported from Flickr and a few are from the US National Archives. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments Support (Harry Mitchell): Other than those few quibbles, I don't see any problems. Articles don't have to be huge to be of high quality and as far as I can tell this is comprehensive. It reads nicely and doesn't leave me wanting for more information. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  17:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The link on "consist" doesn't work (it's not defined in the linked glossary); I know what it means because I have an interest in railways but I'm not sure the average reader would
 * I've changed the consist redirect to point at a more appropriate location. Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I like the background section. Would it be worth mentioning experiments with gas-powered trains elsewhere? I know of the British project, the APT-E, and according to our article there were projects in France, Canada, and previously in the States (I see the French project is mentioned in passing in the design section).
 * I think so; maybe a sentence or two. Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Added some sentences. Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it really important how many seats are in the bar/grill coach? And if so, why not mention the seating arrangements in the other coaches?
 * I think it's worth mentioning; absent a picture or floorplan of the bar/grill, it gives the reader of sense of the space. Pier's CMU conference paper from 1975 has floor plans of the Rohr Turboliners which can be described in the main text; I'm looking for a good description of coach seating in the RTGs (Morgan doesn't discuss it explicitly). Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What did Morgan find "difficult to navigate" about the vestibules? Are they different from any other vestibules?
 * They differed from North American design; I've added a section explaining their design. Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no reference at the end of paragraph 2 of the "service" section.
 * Added. Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The "St Louis" subsection repeats some of the information just above
 * Fixed. Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * citing inadequate signalling along the route. The new equipment had fallen out of favor given the context, it's not clear that the "equipment" referred to is the train (as opposed to some signalling equipment, for example)
 * Clarified that it was the trains that fell out of favor.
 * Thank you very much indeed for the feedback. Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It was an interesting read. Happy to support. Just FYI, the link on "consist" in the lead still goes to Glossary of rail transport terms, which doesn't include the term, but that's not a big enough issue to affect my support. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh; I forgot I linked that page directly. It's fixed for real now. Thanks again. Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments Support from John
A very fine article. Before I could support, I would like these points addressed.
 * "British Rail began testing the APT-E in 1972; although successful, British Rail did not pursue gas turbine propulsion." There's a grammatical problem there, but there is also a NPOV problem. To claim the APT-E experiment was "successful" is perhaps an oversimplification.
 * "Reflecting the higher crashworthiness standards in the United States, the buff strength of the design was 800,000 pounds (362,873.9 kg)." The meaning of this isn't clear to me. Higher than where? These trains were designed and built in the US. --John (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the sentence on the APT-E. Regarding crashworthiness, the difference is between the imported ANF Turboliners and the Rohr Turboliners. Mackensen (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So did the imported trainsets not have to meet US standards then? --John (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently not; see e.g. . Although no source I've seen says as much, I suspect Amtrak obtained a waiver from the Federal Railroad Administration. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thank you. --John (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Found a source confirming my guess; the RTGs operated under a permanent waiver. I've updated the article. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Coord note
 * Hi Mackenson, unless I missed it above, we'll need a source review for formatting and reliability.
 * Also, as this is your first FAC we'll also want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all first-timers to jump through. These checks can be conducted by people who've commented above or you can post requests at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert but the sources all appear to be reliable (there are a couple that appear to be enthusiast-oriented rather than scholarly works, but I wouldn't say that makes them inherently unreliable and the article isn't built on them), and there's enough bibliographic information to track them down. I did spot checks on most of the online references (footnotes 8, 10, 20, 21, 34, 39, and 46 of this version) and was able to verify the information they were supporting and didn't see any signs of a copyright problem. I also verified that all the ISBNs match the books. Is that enough of a spotcheck or do you need more? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my belated reply, Harry -- I think that'll do, tks.
 * Mackensen, there's a fair few duplinks in the article. I won't hold up promotion on that account but pls review; this script highlights the duplicates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.