Talk:Hi-Level/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 333-blue (talk · contribs) 08:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

To be netural

Not netural enough, but at least not an advertisement.

Grammar

Some sentences may not be correct, see below for more details.

The current status

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article has some grammar and spelling errors to fix, and the design section is too long (too focus), try to focus on other sections.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

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

   Example:

By the 1960s the Santa Fe encountered...

This is the correct sentence:

By the 1960s, the Santa Fe encountered...

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   Actually, more will be better.

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   This article is not netural enough, though.

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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

@333-blue: Could you please expand on the neutrality problems you found in the article, giving specific examples? I'm also unclear on the problem with the Design section; this being an article on a new type of railcar, the design section can't help but go into detail. I don't see this as a MOS problem, but I'm open to being convinced. Mackensen (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It should be neturaller, as is example:

These constituted five equipment sets, sufficient for daily service on the El Capitan beginning on July 8, 1956.[8][13] A standard consist for the new train comprised two step-down coaches, five standard coaches, a lounge and a dining car. The Hi-Level cars continued in service after the Santa Fe combined the El Capitan and Super Chief in 1958.[14] The Santa Fe also converted six single-level baggage cars to baggage-dormitories (3477–3482) with a spoiler at one end to create a visual transition.

333-blue 13:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This is an objective statement of facts. There's no value judgement nor opinion in there. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it starts from here, probably:

The Santa Fe also converted six single-level baggage cars to baggage-dormitories (3477–3482) with a spoiler at one end to create a visual transition.

Looks like an advertisement. 333-blue 23:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how that could be understood as an advertisement. The purpose of the text, in the absence of a free image, is to describe (briefly) the appearance of the cars which supplemented the Hi-Levels in regular service. Mackensen (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Mackensen: the words below like an ad:

...to baggage-dormitories (3477–3482) with a spoiler at one end to create a visual transition.

333-blue 08:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You think "spoiler at one end to create a visual transition" is an ad? Strange thing for the ATSF (long gone) to advertise. Here's an unfree image depicting the baggage car: [1]. There's a spoiler at one end. It creates a visual transition between single-level and Hi-Level equipment. In my opinion the phrasing is neutral; I would welcome any suggestion on how to write it more neutrally. Mackensen (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This is my suggestion, add some netural words, like "quite" instead of "very", others are mostly still OK. 333-blue 13:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as neither word is present in the sentence in question, I can't act on your advice. For all that, "very" doesn't appear in the article at all. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so then, that won't be a big problem:

spoiler at one end to create a quite visual transition

Some words about passengers can add the word named "quite" to make it neturaller. 333-blue 13:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That is nonsensical and bad English. In fact, it's less neutral in that it contains a supposed value judgement not found in the source. Mackensen (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, if you think so, you may do that, but there are some spelling errors, though. 333-blue 23:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@333-blue: I'm sorry, but you're the reviewer. It's your responsibility to call out specific problems with the article and suggest improvements. You say it has neutrality problems, but don't explain what they are, then you give one which is an objective statement of facts and suggest an ungrammatical alternative. You now say there are misspellings (I find none), but again don't say what they are. You say the design section is too long, but you haven't expanded on that idea, such as why that would be a MOS:LAYOUT issue. Regarding references, you passed it while saying that "Actually, more will be better." What does that mean? This article lists a newspaper article, three journal articles, and eight books. There are twenty-one footnotes. Every assertion is cited. If there's an issue you should say what it is so that I can improve the article. Mackensen (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Like the "background" section, there is only one source there. Remember to add more. Sorry, I thought there are more spelling mistakes, but they are all fixed now. We're all in Wikipedia, so everybody should respect each other. I looked at the article again, it is netural enough to be a GA. If FA, we can sure that this have to be neturaller. Right now, it' Passed. Congratulations. 333-blue 04:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)