Talk:Budd Metroliner/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 22:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, and returning to the lead at the end. Please indicate when issues have been addressed by adding comments or possibly the {{Done}} 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) 22:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

History

Design and production

• representatives from the Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR), the USDOT, and a private consulting firm... USDOT is an acronym, and should be spelled out in full on first occurence. The article seems to use DOT as the shorthand notation for this, so "United States Department of Transportation (DOT)", and then you can use DOT subsequently.
• The PRR and the DOT clashed on several technical details. "clashed" sounds a bit strong. Suggest "disagreed".
• were chosen as compromise. Should be "were chosen as a compromise."
• The PRR paid $10.4 million, with the remaining $9.6 million from the federal government. The second clause could do with a verb. Suggest "with the remaining $9.6 million coming from the federal government." or similar.
• complaints from competing Red Arrow Lines and Capitol Trailways, Red Arrow Lines needs a little explanation.
• compared with older electric MU technology. MU is an acronym, but since it is not used subsequently, suggest "multiple unit".
• were delivered to the testing location at Jenkintown station in September 1967. Jenkintown station could do with a bit of geographical clarification, so "Jenkintown station, Pennsylvania" or similar.
• PRR executives pushed for a delay in service. What does this mean? Were they requesting that the cars did not enter revenue service until later than originally planned? Clarify.
• The remainder of cars were delivered... Should be "the remainder of the cars..."
• the first GE-powered Metroliners arrived for testing. GE is another acronym that has not been introduced. It should be "General Electric (GE)" in paragraph 2, so you can use GE subsequently.
• The GE-powered cars proved to have a superior pantograph design - the pantographs on the Westinghouse-powered cars would bounce on the aging catenary wires, then drawn high currents due to improperly designed transformers - but were still not fit for service. The parenthetical clause is too long to make easy sense of the main sentence, and there are some grammar issues. Suggest "The pantographs on the Westinghouse-powered cars would bounce on the aging catenary wires, and then draw high currents due to improperly designed transformers. The GE-powered cars proved to have a superior pantograph design, but were still not fit for service." or similar.
• for the 11 Metroliners for Harrisburg service. Suggest "for the 11 additional Metroliners for the Harrisburg service"

Early service

• ...indicated that such trains would not soon be practical. Reads awkwardly. Try rewording.
• Service was gradually increased, including a non-stop round trip on a 2.5 hour schedule was added April 2, 1969. Doesn't quite make sense. Try "...schedule, which was added on April 2, 1969." or similar.
• half of passengers had switched from other modes, Suggest "half of the passengers..."
• intended for Harrisburg service... Suggest " intended for the Harrisburg service..."
• The twelve additional cars - likely including the 11 originally built for Harrisburg service... It is not obvious what the twelve additional cars are, since 12 cars have not previously been introduced. Clarify.
• In February, GE-powered car was shipped... Suggest "In February, a GE-powered car was shipped..."

Rebuilding and replacement

• A wreck of the Night Owl four days later two took AEM-7 locomotives out of commission. Suggest a few more words to clarify what took place and where the Night Owl runs.
• and terminated them on the lower level of 30th Street Station. Needs details of where 30th Street Station is.

Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

 Partly done I have made all the changes except one: your British English dictates "the Harrisburg service", but American English seems to allow "Harrisburg service" which I find sounds more correct. I'm not convinced that a large amount of context is needed for tangentially related subjects - after all, that's why wikilinks exist - so hopefully what I have added is sufficient. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't suggested a large amount of context. It needs just enough to stop people clicking on the links because they cannot make sense of the text, and then failing to read the rest of your article because the link was too interesting. It is also worth putting yourself in the position of someone who has to use a screen reader. They will give up once there are too many words with no context. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Conversions and disposition

Conversion to cab cars

• rather than needing to be wyed at terminals. Wyed is not a word. Clarify what is meant.
• When the P40 locomotives arrived in 1991... Suggest "were introduced" rather than "arrived". Is the date correct? The wikilink to P40 says that they were not built until 1993, and I don't have access to the book which is used as a ref.
• and the Surfliners in 2000–2002... Suggest "and the Surfliner railcars in 2000–2002..."
• although the Vermonter began using them when a backup move was added in 1995. Vermonter needs a few words of context, and I have no idea what the rest of the sentence means. Please clarify.
• After the Vermonter's backup move was eliminated in 2014, the ex-Metroliner cab cars are used... Should be "were used..." to go with "After" and "was" in the previous clause.

Other conversions

• track conditions for the Acela Express service. A little context of where the Acela Express runs between would be helpful.
• it was used during testing of the JetTrain at TTCI. JetTrain needs some context ("experimental high-speed JetTrain" ?) and TTCI is an acronym, so needs to be spelled out in full on first occurrence.
• an Amtrak business/conference club car The slash should be avoided, as it suggests the two words are linked, but does not specify how. (see WP:MOS) Clarify by specifying whether it is both, either, or some other linking.

Disposition

• Except for the 9600-series cab cars - which are still used in revenue operation - and the four cars modified for other uses - most... You can get away with two dashes, but not three. Suggest replacing with conventional punctuation.
• One Metroliner snack bar car, #860, is preserved at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania in its original paint scheme and interior. This is a single sentence paragraph. You either need to expand it, or join it to the previous one.

• That is the text reviewed. I'll move on to checking the refs next. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done with this section. The PDF page numbers might take me a bit longer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

References

• I have checked a number of references, and in each case, it has supported the text as written. However, most of the sources are multi-page pdf documents, and no page numbers are included in the refs. This makes it difficult to find the precise information. All multi-page pdf documents need page numbers each time they are referenced.

Lead

• The lead should introduce and summarise the main points to the article. It fulfils this purpose well. There are a couple of issues.

• was a class of American electric multiple unit (EMU) railcars. Should be railcar, to match "was a class", which is singular.
• limited top speeds to just 100 mph (160 km/h) to 120 mph (190 km/h). Would be better as "limited top speeds to between 100 mph (160 km/h) and 120 mph (190 km/h)."
• There is another use of the slash in "business/conference club car", which needs dealing with in the same way as in 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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments above

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• That is the review completed. I will put it on hold. Do let me know if there is anything that is not clear, or if you need more time to address the issues. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bob1960evens: I just did the page numbers and the changes to the lede. I believe that completes all of your recommendations - are there any I've missed? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that all of the recommendations have now been implemented, and am pleased to be able to award the article GA status. Congratulations on a well-written and well-researched article. Keep up the good work! Bob1960evens (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)