Talk:EMD SDP40F/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 20:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

GA review

Placeholder to say I will do this review, starting tomorrow. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

I've done a first read of the article and found it interesting. Certainly no worries on the WP:WIAGA#Immediate_failures front so a full review can be done. While I was reading, I checked all the wikilinks and a few needed amending to avoid redirects; replace hyphens with endashes; one example of overlinking; and the references to HEP were a bit cart before horse. I do like the images.

On the whole, compliance with WP:V is good but there are a couple of sentences which I've flagged and one where I think you need to say "by whom". I have a particular question concerning the redlink reference to the SSB 1200s in the "Freight use" section. As it stands, this is rather vague and needs to be clarified. I've discovered at The Yard Limit that the SSB 1200 was the "Switcher, San Bernardino" and that "a total of 29 were rebuilt from NW2, SW9, SW1200 and TR4 A&B units; when retired in 1984-1985 18 units went to Amtrak as #550-567". This is obviously part of the trade mentioned in the article. I presume the Danneman citation encompasses this but the information needs that bit more added to it.

I won't place the article on hold just yet as these points are the end result of a first reading and they might be quickly resolved. I'll review it again in more depth after that is done. Diarising for Wednesday and will have to put on hold if no action by then. Hope all this and the edits I've done are useful. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think I've addressed the points in question. Mackensen (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Review findings

During my initial reading of the article yesterday, I had to address several points which arose because insufficient copyediting and proofreading had been done; therefore, due diligence is an issue. A detailed review has been done today and the following points have arisen:

• Much of EMD SDP40F has been copied from EMD F40PH. It should be treated as a subject in its own right.

  I find this hard to avoid because of how much the subjects overlap; right down to the incorporation of SDP40F components in the F40PH. Is there something specific you had in mind? Mackensen (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• The introduction is not up to GA standard. It is too brief and fails to present an adequate summary of the whole article. I would like to see two to three paragraphs with broader coverage. For example, "A series of derailments in the mid-1970s led to their early retirement in favor of the EMD F40PH" should say something about the FRA enquiry and the perceived design issue which caused the derailments. Derailments are a major issue, especially if any of the accidents were serious, and cannot be dismissed in a single short sentence, even in an introduction.

  Expanded. Mackensen (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• In both the introduction and when Amtrak is first mentioned in the narrative, it should be specified that Amtrak is a passenger service. I know that myself, but many readers will not know. You must provide information that anticipates the reader's questions and do not assume they already know.

  Mentioned. Mackensen (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• The introduction includes "EMD built 150 for Amtrak; they were the first locomotives built new for Amtrak and for a brief time they formed the backbone of Amtrak's long-distance fleet". There is nothing in the "Background" about that and its absence raises another question there (see below).

  Why would this information be in background? The lede summarizes the entire article. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Amtrak inherited an aging and mechanically-incompatible fleet of diesel locomotives from various private railroads on its startup in 1971". Citation needed and I think there should be some explanation of the situation, using examples of the older models. Why did Amtrak have to accept obsolete stock and did they begin with an entire fleet of these engines or were there some new ones too? This is where you have provided information in the introduction that is not in the narrative (see above).

  This is cited at the end of the paragraph. Amtrak accepted these models for want of an alternative. A full discussion of Amtrak's power situation in 1971 strikes me as outside the scope of the article; much of it is discussed in Amtrak#1970s: the Rainbow Era. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

  Furthermore, specific examples *are* called out: the EMD E8 and EMD E9. Mackensen (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Scrap the "Background" section which adds little value and merge its content into "History". Having what is essentially historical information in a background bit has the reader jumping from here to there and back again. Keep it all together. One design section and one historical section is the best structure for an article of this type.

  I don't agree; this is the structure used is similar articles. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• "The most modern locomotives remained in private hands to operate the various commuter services which, by law, did not pass to Amtrak". Need a citation to confirm the legal position and I think many readers would ask why these services were excluded.

  This is cited to Holland. Again, I think this is beyond the article's scope to discuss further. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Both shared the EMD 645E3 diesel engine prime mover, which developed 3,000 hp (2.2 MW)". Use of the word "both" is ambiguous. The two preceding sentences mention three locomotives: the SDP40F itself, the EMD FP45 and the EMD SD40-2.

  Fixed; the original version of that sentence discussed a single locomotive. As it happens all three use the same prime mover. Mackensen (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• "The locomotive had a gear ratio of 57:20". Citation needed.

  The citation is there in the NTSB report. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• "They were designed for easy conversion to freight locomotives should Amtrak cease operation". For the benefit of the reader, why should this contingency have arisen? Was it widely anticipated that Amtrak might close down?

  I've added a clause indicating that people believed this was the case. Mackensen (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Milwaukee Road" needs a link to Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad.

  Fixed. Gah. Mackensen (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Amtrak deployed the original 40 locomotives on Western long-distance trains". Is the capital "W" correct in American English?

  Not without "... United States" after it. Rewrote. Mackensen (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• "This happy state of affairs did not persist". Don't like the use of this sentence given the context of the derailments. Ingles made his statement at the end of 1975 but the derailments had obviously begun in 1974. I think you should open the "Derailments" section with Ingles and say something like: "In late 1975, J. David Ingles referred to the SDP40Fs as the "stars of Amtrak's long-distance trains"[20], but operating crews were already reporting that the locomotives rode poorly compared to the E-units they had replaced.[21]"

  I like that; I've moved the sentence and rewritten. Mackensen (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Coverage of the derailments is inadequate. Need to see information about the specific incidents, especially if they were serious accidents.

• In general they don't seem to have been serious; none of the secondary sources treat them as such. I've added a few sentences based on Cook's commentary. It dovetails with the discussion of the alleged causes. We do not, as far as I know, have articles about any of the individual derailments. Mackensen (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Please rewrite "the actual culprits were the lightweight baggage cars" to say that the weight of those cars was the cause of the problem.

  Fixed; didn't even occur to me that lightweight was ambiguous in that context. Mackensen (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Is "aging" a correct spelling in American English? In GB, it is spelt "ageing".

  Yes. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• In "Freight use", the redlink should be removed if there is no article for SSB1200 – is there one under a different title, perhaps?

  There is not, but there ought to be someday. Wikipedia:Red link offers contrary advice. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Apart from the one preserved in Ogden, were all other SDF40-2s scrapped?

  There is no reliable source which states such definitively, that I've found. I've reported what the sources say; that BNSF cut up its locomotives and donated one. If a couple really did wind up at Pueblo TTC there's no source I can find which says so. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Preservation" has a single sentence only and so it should be merged with the previous section (add the sentence to the end).

  Done. Mackensen (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

For me, as a reader who would like to know more about Amtrak and its locomotives, the article fails the "broad in coverage" criterion and needs much more work. It is effectively a summary written for the benefit of someone who is familiar with Amtrak and with these locomotives. It does not make allowance for readers who are interested in the subject and wish to learn more, so it presents a poor reader experience.

The main problem is that the article does not meet criterion #3 (broad in its coverage) because it doesn't adequately cover the scope of the subject. This is a major failing and, as there are (and have been) other issues too, I've decided to fail the article. I notice that the article is currently rated QA start-class and I think that is its correct status. It should first be worked up to C-class standard and then to B-class before it is presented at GAN again. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• @BlackJack:I would ask you to please consider placing the review on hold for a few days to give me a chance to respond to the issues raised. Most of the things you mention can be addressed by simple copyediting. The article structure matches similar articles such as EMD F40PH, Superliner (railcar), and Amfleet, all of which are good articles. The article overlaps with the F40PH for obvious reasons; you can't tell the story of one without the other. The article assessment levels are generally left up to the individual wikiprojects; no one ever reassessed this article after I rewrote and expanded it. I've re-read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/Assessment#Quality_scale and must disagree that the article is "Start-class" on that scale. I'm also perplexed that you've flagged several things as needing a citation when the citation is present. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Mackensen. As you've made an immediate start and expanded the intro, I've placed it on hold as you requested. Please let me know when you've finished and I'll review it again then. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@BlackJack: I've rewritten parts of the article along the lines you've suggested and would be grateful if you could have another look. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for the six good article criteria:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and embedded lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Inline citations to reliable sources where necessary (e.g., direct quotations):

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Scope:

   B. Length:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Hello, Mackensen. That is excellent work and I'm now pleased to pass the article as GA. I've revised the checklist as above. Well done. All the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)