Talk:Caltrain Modernization Program/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 16:10, 4 September 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  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) 16:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Dead external links

• There are four dead links and a soft dead link, which you might like to look at fixing before I get that far. You can use the external links menu item above to see which ones they are.

 Done - it looks like these were primarily associated with San Mateo Daily Journal articles. That particular newspaper changed their policy and website over the summer to add a paywall which had the unfortunate effect of slightly changing all their URLs. I used an archive link for the other broken reference. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

History

Background

• However, by 1977, Southern Pacific began facing rapidly declining ridership and petitioned the state Public Utilities Commission to allow them discontinue the commute operation. Suggest "were facing" rather than "began facing", and "the commute operation" needs tweaking. Suggest it should be "the commuter operation" if sticking with lower case, or the fact that the whole thing is known as the Peninsula Commute needs a brief explanation, and should then be capitalised.

 Done - the use of 'commute' was confusing and originally intended to refer to 'The Commute' as the prior 'Peninsula Commute' was known. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Early electrification proposals

• ...proposed replacing the existing diesel-electric locomotives with either an EMD AEM-7 electric locomotive... This reads like all diesel-electric locomotives would be replaced by a single electric locomotive. Suggest it should be plural here and two sentences later, as it is at the end of the paragraph.
• ...since the gallery cars (built in 1985) were then relatively new and could be reused. Suggest removing the brackets to improve flow. So, "...since the gallery cars, which had been built in 1985, were then relatively new and could be reused."
• ...and went on to publish the draft Rapid Rail Study on October 1, 1998... Should be "a draft Rapid Rail Study", since it has not been previously introduced.
• At that time, Caltrain was touting daily ridership... Not sure that "touting" is a good word choice here. It suggests they were hoping to get such numbers, but I suspect that they were already achieving them.

 Done - as suggested, thanks! Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Caltrain/HSR blended system

• Details of a proposed agreement between Caltrain and the CHSRA leaked in February 2012, which stated... "which" as a conjuction doesn't quite work here, because of the intervening clause. Suggest "Details of a proposed agreement between Caltrain and the CHSRA, which were leaked in February 2012, stated..."
• The investments in the "bookend" electrification projects... Not sure what "bookend" means in this context, and the quotes suggest the word is used in an unusual way. Clarify.
• that detailed the "blended" plan... Not sure that "blended" needs its quotes on second occurrence.

 Done - as suggested, thanks! The term "bookend" refers to investments made by CHSRA in Caltrain and Metro at the "ends" of the proposed SF-to-LA system. It is internal jargon, and the copy has been edited to make this more clear, but could be further massaged to remove "bookend" altogether. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Lawsuits

• ruling that the electrification project does not hinge on the high-speed rail project's success, and is thus independent from the latter. The tense changes suddenly. Suggest "did not hinge" and "was thus independent".
• Assembly Bill 1889. Suggest "Assembly Bill No. 1889", which is its official title, so there is no confusion that 1889 might be a year, which I assumed at first.

 Done - as suggested, thanks! Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Contracts awarded

• CBOSS kicked off physical work... "kicked off" is too colloquial, and it was Parsons who began the physical work, not CBOSS. Suggest rewording.
• The FRA approved Caltrain's plans... This is the first time FRA has been mentioned in the body of the article, so should be "Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)". (It is also too far from the lead to remember what FRA stands for.)
• The PCEP draft environmental impact report (EIR)... This paragraph has drifted into jargon, with too many acronyms to make it readable. This is the first mention of PCEP, so it should be introduced as "Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP)" I would suggest that EIR is one acronym too far, and so suggest "After the environment impact report was revised to address the comments received, PCJPB certified this final draft in January 2015." or similar.
• Stadler was awarded a $551 million contract to deliver 16 "KISS" trains of 6 bilevel electric multiple units each... This needs expanding just a little, for clarity. Suggest "The Swiss firm Stadler was awarded a $551 million contract to deliver 96 of their bilevel KISS cars, formed into 16 six-car electric multiple units..." or similar.

 Done - as suggested, thanks! Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Construction

• This is a single sentence section. Could it be expanded a little, given that there are three refs supporting it?

 Done - as suggested, one sentence added. The intent is this will be a living section and construction milestones can be inserted here in the future. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Design

• PCJPB authorized eminent domain proceedings... "eminent domain" is not a term that I recognise, and should be wikilinked to the article of that name.

 Done - as suggested, thanks! Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

FRA waiver and CBOSS PTC

• meeting FRA PTC standards in 49 CFR 236... This is jargon. Suggest expanding to "meeting FRA positive train control standards as defined in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 236" or similar, with a wikilink to "Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations."

 Done - as suggested, thanks! Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Service changes

• The weekend schedule was revised effective July 15 2017, which increased headways (and decrease service frequency) from 60 minutes to 90 minutes between trains and eliminated eight trains per weekend day. The bracketed phrase is in the wrong tense, and the wrong place. Suggest "The weekend schedule was revised on July 15 2017, with headways increased from 60 minutes to 90 minutes between trains, and service interval decreased, by eliminating eight trains per weekend day." or similar.

 Done - as suggested, thanks! Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Rolling stock

• will be compliant with FRA alternative Tier-I crash-worthiness standard, in which it will have... This sentence is too long, and has some issues. Suggest splitting and slight revision. So "will be compliant with the FRA alternative Tier-I crash-worthiness standard. It will have..." or similar. "the FRA ... standard" could be "FRA ... standards" if that is more appropriate.
• Caltrain KISS trains will be allowed to operate in mix traffic with heavier trains... Suggest "mixed traffic".
• the EMU train will be equipped with doors at two heights... Should be "the EMU trains..."
• for ADA-compliant unassisted boarding of all passengers. ADA is another acronym, and needs expanding.

 Done - as suggested, thanks! Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That is the body of the text reviewed. I will move on to checking the refs next. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for the detailed review and the opportunity to improve the article! Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

References

• Ref 2: Caltrain electrification project takes symbolic step forward. This is used to support an end date of 2021 (a) and 2020 (c), but only 2021 appears in the text.
• Ref 7: Feasibility Study for Electrifying the Caltrain/PCS Railroad is a 25-page pdf, and needs page numbers adding.
• Ref 9: Draft Caltrain Rapid Rail Study is a 66-page pdf, and needs page numbers adding.
• Ref 14: Caltrain/California HSR Blended Operations Analysis is a 92-page pdf, and needs page numbers adding.
• Ref 17: "Authorizing Approval of the High-Speed Rail... is a 9-page pdf, and needs page numbers adding.

Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Mliu92: for your quick responses to the GAN! I hadn't even realized the review started. I've taken care of the first bullet and I am working on restructuring the citations to include page numbers. Thanks for your review! --haha169 (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Done, let me know, however, if this is not what you're looking for! --haha169 (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 38 An act to add Section 2704.78 to the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation. The url goes to an index which runs from 1850 to 2008, so does not include the relevant statute (I think).
• Ref 50 American Public Transportation Association Peer Review for Caltrain is a 14-page pdf, and needs page numbers adding.
• Ref 51 Caltrain Terminates Contract with Parsons Transportation Group (PTG) generates a soft error - page not found.
• Ref 75 TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017 is a 92-page pdf, and needs page numbers adding.
• Ref 81 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Final Environmental Impact Report is a 59-page pdf, and needs page numbers adding.
• Ref 84 Morrison Knudsen Corp. 1992, pp. 8 This should be p.8 for a single page. pp is used for multiple pages. (This is a common problem since page numbers have been added, and affects several other refs.)
• Ref 86 Project 2025 is a 33-page pdf, and needs page numbers adding.
• Ref 87 Petition of Peninsula Joint Powers Board... is a 91-page pdf, and needs page numbers adding.
• Ref 93 211 Subpart F Appendix A. I think the url for this one is probably wrong. (Ref 94 jumps to a relevant section, for instance).
• Ref 99 2017 Caltrain Service Changes. The relevant info appears to be in the FAQ link from the linked index page. This should be indicated, or the link changed to jump directly to the FAQ page.
• Ref 103 Assessment of Electrically Powered Rolling Stock Equipment. It is unclear which of the 14 documents shown on the linked index page contains the relevant info.
• Ref 104 Caltrain Modernization Program, Peninsula Corridor... is a 27-page pdf, and needs page numbers adding.
• Ref 106 Caltrain Modernization Program 4th Quarter is a 32-page pdf, and needs page numbers adding.

It has been possible to check all of the refs as they are all online. I have made detailed checks of around one third of them, and in all cases, the text as written was adequately supported by the reference. I have assumed that the same attention to detail has been exercised for the remaining refs.

Done for all except for the (now) Ref 95 incorrect link. I couldn't find the correct document, @Mliu92: do you mind taking a look at it and see what's wrong with the ref? --haha169 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Haha169: Ref 95 was intended to link to Appendix A of Part 211 to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The way that particular template is structured makes it impossible to directly link it, so I modified the template to bounce to 49 CFR 211 directly, and turned Appendix A into a direct link to eCFR. I also added the original policy, as issued in the Federal Register, along with a minor amendment (updating the address) issued in Federal Register. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Images

• All images are correctly licenced, and most of the captions are good. I suggest that An image of a Stadler "KISS" electric train. could be improved. We can see it is an image, but the fact that it is operated by the German Westfalenbahn would be more informative.

Done --haha169 (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead should introduce the article and summarise its main points. It does a reasonably good job of this. There are a couple of issues.
• The lead should mention that the railroad is in the US, as wikipedia is an international encyclopedia.
• The acronym FPA is not introduced. It should be "Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA)" in the lead, as it is on first occurrence in the body of the article.
• Some of the diesel locomotives will be retained for service south of Tamien and, potentially, on the Dumbarton Rail Corridor. The Dumbarton Rail Corridor is mentioned without any context, and is not clearly mentioned in the body of the article. The article mentions that electrification is a prerequisite for expansion across the Dumbarton Rail Bridge, and ref 17, which supports this, makes no reference to diesel or electric trains. This needs to be clarified.

Done --haha169 (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The sentence as previously written was correct but confusing: diesel locomotives will be retained for use south of Tamien. Diesel locomotives would also be used over Dumbarton Rail Corridor (DRC), as there are currently no plans to expand the electrified corridor over DRC, and electrification is not a prerequisite for service across DRC. The article text stating that electrification was a prerequisite to expanded service across DRC and to Gilroy is inaccurate: in re-reading the source 1998 Rapid Rail Study, it appears that electrification is merely a higher priority than expanding the system. RRS gives four priorities starting on page 1-14: (1) Rehabilitation (deferred maintenance from SP ownership), (2) Enhancement (completed as Caltrain Express), (3) Electrification (the current article), and (4) Expansion (including DRC and Gilroy). I will rewrite the article text under the subhead Early electrification proposals to make this clear. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 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

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):

   See comments above

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I have now completed the review. You seem to be getting on well with resolving the issues. I will put the article on hold. You normally have 7 days to complete the work, but do let me know if you need a little more time, or if there is anything that is not clear. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly review this article's conformity to the GA criteria. I will spend the next few days working to solve your concerns and let you know when I am done or have any concerns! --haha169 (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Bob1960evens:, I believe Mliu and I have taken care of all of your concerns. Thank you again for taking the time to leave a thorough review, and I hope we have fixed all of the issues! --haha169 (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the delay in wrapping this up, but I missed the ping somehow. Anyway, I am pleased to see that all of the issues raised have been addressed, and consequently am awarding the article GA status. Well done on an interesting and informative article. Keep up the good work. Bob1960evens (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)