Talk:International (Amtrak train)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ComplexRational (talk · contribs) 14:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take up this review. ComplexRational (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not posting sooner; things have gotten somewhat busier on my end. For starters, this article looks very well-written, well-cited, well-illustrated, and has no glaring omissions. I'll probably need until Saturday to review it more thoroughly and do another check against some of the GA criteria, but I think only a few minor changes are needed to attain GA.

• The New York-Toronto Maple Leaf, introduced in April 1981, had proved an immediate success - Definitely appears relevant, though it needs a bit more context in its current position. Does its success have anything to do with the agreement between Amtrak and Via? Also, I’d strongly suggest adding a citation for "immediate success".
• the state approved $6.7 million on January 17, 2001 – Is this included in ref 18? (I cannot easily verify this directly.)
• costing Amtrak $27,000 a month. - Is this included in ref 19? If not, another citation is required for this statistic.
• On its introduction, the train usually consisted of two or three coaches and a food-service / custom-class car combination. - "On its introduction" and "usually" are contradictory; does this sentence describe initial service or the general pattern in its first few years?

I'll post more as I read it again. I haven't fully evaluated the lead yet; comments on that will follow later. ComplexRational (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries - I was on a trip this weekend myself. I've added a few inline citations to clarify, and cleaned up some wording. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's continue.

• In 2004, the train was replaced with the Blue Water, which offered a better interstate schedule and higher reliability. - can this be worded more neutrally? Alternatively, explain how reliable sources explain how the schedule is better in the body, but this is not ideal for the lead in its current form.
• the westbound train made convenient connections in Chicago to southern, western, and southwestern trains - is "convenient" a fact or an opinion? It's in the source, but I'd recommend just dropping the word convenient here.
• In 2000, Amtrak proposed moving the train entirely to the Chicago-Detroit line that fall as part of the Network Growth Strategy. - the wording is slightly unclear. Nothing wrong with the redlink, but does this mean "...that falls as part..." or something different?

• Though I cannot verify information cited to Sanders 2003 or Sanders 2006, they look pretty reliable and what I did find is consistent with other sources. So I'd still give a pass for verifiability (criterion 2). I have to do one more check for the MOS guidelines, but at most only a few minor changes are needed to pass. ComplexRational (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - I was without access to my books for a few days. (Sanders 2003 is available on Google Books, as linked at the bottom.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I checked the Google Books link, but the cited pages are not included in the preview. The bits of the book I read seem reliable, however, and the article is consistent with the other sources I checked. ComplexRational (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• I believe that's covered by which would allow for a more reliable trip on the former Blue Water Limited schedule and restore connections in Chicago. in the body. I've added a bit and clarified with a citation specifically for that sentence.
• Dropped the word.
• "Fall" as in "autumn". I've reworded for clarity.

Thank you, I missed that. It makes sense now.

I did another check for criteria 1b and 4, and found no issues, and have no other comments about the article text, so I won't hold this up any longer. I'm passing this as GA. Congratulations! ComplexRational (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·