Talk:Turboliner/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The359 (talk · contribs) 08:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Hello to whomever is going to handle this review. Not an immediate pass, but nothing too major that can't be dealt with in a week's time.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   First, I made a few minor grammatical corrections to the article for you. Is there any way to combine the two infoboxes? As the RTG and RTL seem to be the same basic trainset underneath, some of this information is duplicated. Further, the infobox should really be at the top of the article to offer a reader an easy to find a description of the trainset. I am unsure what the reference to (64-69) correlates to in regard to the refurbishing of the mothballed RTG sets. Exotic is a bit of a peacock term for describing the sets, their powerplants were not unique to the United States and there is no mention of what would make these sets stand out from what was in use at the time. I would also change the order of things a bit, describing why Amtrak ordered the sets should probably come before their actual introduction to service. I would also integrate the RTL-II section into the main RTL section as this section is so short and there is no mention of this set entering service. There is already mention of the RTL-II in this initial section. Some items are in quotation marks that I don't believe should be, such as the name of the RTL-III program and "fully accepted."

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There is no reference to the fact that the sets were limited to five cars. I'd also point out that your second picture in the article shows a Turboliner with six cars, is this a later change or something unique? Your reference for the train horn lists a different model number from what you have in the article. There is also no reference for the multiple instances of Amtrak changing the names of the sets back and forth. You reference to the price of the auction for the remaining RTLs is incorrect, the source specifies that this total includes the sale of surplus parts. The photographs of the RTGs from the National Archive mentions that the two initial RTGs were on a leased trial for eight months before being purchased along with the four additional trains.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It might be helpful to explain what RTG stands for (I assume a carry over of Rame à Turbine à Gaz) as well as RTL. Also, a brief background on the T 2000 would be helpful for the common reader, just the basics of what did carry over from the T 2000 to the RTG, such as their turbine. Also, there is a later mention that the RTL used an electrification system that fit the American standard. Did the RTGs not? I am also slightly confused on the fact that the RTGs failed in St. Louis by 1974, but Amtrak chose to order RTL sets just a year later that had the same problems listed for the failure in St. Louis. Also, the multiple references to Amtrak working with New York, what exactly are we defining as New York? The state government? The MTA? What exactly was involved in the RTL-III upgrades, besides a new coat of paint? Is there any explanation for the fire on an RGL-II in New York, was it something wrong with the train itself?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The statement that Amtrak was not enthusiastic about gas-turbines and fixed-capacity sets is POV and has no reference to back it. There is also mention in the introduction of Amtrak wanting faster trains as well as newer trains, but there is no reference to speed being a factor in buying the trains later in the article. Is there a reference for their desire to increase speed as well?

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems here.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I'd also say that the infobox should really be limited solely to a general view of the train, and not include photos of the interior or details of the bogie, these pictures should be worked into the article elsewhere. Of the two, I think the interior photo is better for the article, as space may be at a premium on such a short article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is what I see so far, I may notice a few things here and there as I look over again, so there may be additions.

Hello, thanks for taking this review on. I'm busy in real life for the next couple days but I'll try to address these points as soon as possible. I would just note quickly that separate infoboxes were adopted early on for the sake of the reader; the RTGs and RTLs had different manufacturers, different introduction dates, different withdrawal dates, different physical appearance, and different formations. Combining the infobox would mean row after row of "fact (RTG)", linebreak, and "fact (RTL)". That's a poor experience for the reader. That's the same idea behind having a simple pair of images at the top to highlight the difference appearance of the two types, with the separate sections following, each with its own infobox. Finally, the bogies are highlighted for the RTL because there's no actual free-use interior shot of one. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The main problem I see with the layout as it is now, is that there is a ton of empty space at the bottom of the article due to top pictures pushing down the RTG infobox, which in turn pushes down the RTL infobox. At least on my monitor, the RTL infobox is almost entirely occupying empty space, and I'm sure on lower resolutions its far worse. My suggestion is to take the bogie image out of the RTL infobox to make that smaller, and personally I would remove it altogether, it does not inform anyone of anything beyond what is already explained in text. If you feel it's helpful to the article, it should be placed somewhere on the left to even things out. Moving the interior shot of the RTG to the left of the article may also clear things up as well. As for the opening image of the two trains to show their visual differences, perhaps a change to a horizontal layout would be beneficial? The³5₉ (Talk) 00:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Just, for the sake of example, I have laid out the images and infoboxes slightly to better fit the article. Feel free to revert if you disagree with it. However I did notice while rearranging things, the lead is rather short and could use an expansion. Other than that we're pretty much there. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What browser/resolution are you using? I'm playing around with Chrome and Firefox and I can't see any reflow issues. Each infobox remains within its own section. Conversely, your change made the introduction difficult to read at my resolution because the horizontal images took up about half the available real estate. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I am running a 1920x1080 widescreen layout, which would explain the visual differences if you're running a 4:3 on a lower resolution. My thinking was simply that since everything is right aligned on the article, they begin to shove each other downward on higher resolutions as the text is stretched horizontally. Putting something on the left would help spread things out, but if it's unable to be done, then it's unable to be done. I'd say if you just expand out the lead a bit more then we're pretty much there, everything that can be answered has been answered for. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've made some corrections, but there are some questions which I can't answer because I don't have reliable sources which address them. There's a lot of contradictory information about the Turboliners floating around. Addressing your points below:

• Is there any way to combine the two infoboxes? As the RTG and RTL seem to be the same basic trainset underneath, some of this information is duplicated. Further, the infobox should really be at the top of the article to offer a reader an easy to find a description of the trainset.
  • Addressed in my original comment.
• I am unsure what the reference to (64-69) correlates to in regard to the refurbishing of the mothballed RTG sets.
  • The numbers for the power cars, which identify the sets. I've clarified this. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I've edited it further to try and avoid confusion, someone may mistake 64-69 as an individual number. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Exotic is a bit of a peacock term for describing the sets, their powerplants were not unique to the United States and there is no mention of what would make these sets stand out from what was in use at the time.
  • Not unique, but unusual. I've reworded. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• I would also change the order of things a bit, describing why Amtrak ordered the sets should probably come before their actual introduction to service.
  • Re-ordered. Legacy of the order in which the sections were written. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• I would also integrate the RTL-II section into the main RTL section as this section is so short and there is no mention of this set entering service. There is already mention of the RTL-II in this initial section.
  • I think they should remain separate. There's been much confusion over the years between RTL-II and RTL-III, and which did what. Sources on the RTL-II are a little difficult to come by. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if you misunderstood, my suggestion was to merge RTL-II into RTL, but keep the RTL-III section seperate as there is such a large amount to discuss there. If there is a stark difference between all three versions, then keep the three sections. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I understood and I think it's appropriate to keep sub-types in separate sections. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Some items are in quotation marks that I don't believe should be, such as the name of the RTL-III program and "fully accepted."
  • Fully accepted is a direct quotation from the source. I removed the other quotation marks. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• There is no reference to the fact that the sets were limited to five cars. I'd also point out that your second picture in the article shows a Turboliner with six cars, is this a later change or something unique?
  • Amtrak promotional materials from the late 1970s said five; the RTLs were delivered with six. I've sourced that to the NTSB report. That explains the discrepancy you observed. The RTGs had five. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Your reference for the train horn lists a different model number from what you have in the article.
  • Fixed. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• There is also no reference for the multiple instances of Amtrak changing the names of the sets back and forth.
  • If you're talking about the use of the Turboliner name for services, it's referenced in each individual section. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• You reference to the price of the auction for the remaining RTLs is incorrect, the source specifies that this total includes the sale of surplus parts.
  • Clarified. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• The photographs of the RTGs from the National Archive mentions that the two initial RTGs were on a leased trial for eight months before being purchased along with the four additional trains.
  • Yes, I'm looking for a source which describes the lease in full. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• It might be helpful to explain what RTG stands for (I assume a carry over of Rame à Turbine à Gaz) as well as RTL.
  • I agree; I haven't seen a reliable source which does. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Found and cited for RTG. Mackensen (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Also, a brief background on the T 2000 would be helpful for the common reader, just the basics of what did carry over from the T 2000 to the RTG, such as their turbine.
  • I do not have a source which describes these details. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I would suggest that sources from the T 2000 article be carried over, but that article has none. Perhaps try a plea for a reference from WikiProject Trains? As an addition, I'm not sure if the mention of the TGV 001 is necessary for this article. The RTG and TGV 001 should be so far seperated from one another that I don't think it's relevant to mention their loose connection. A read of the T 2000 and TGV 001 articles shows no direct correlation between the two besides their powerplant. The³5₉ (Talk) 00:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Also, there is a later mention that the RTL used an electrification system that fit the American standard. Did the RTGs not?
  • They probably did; I could find no reference to the HEP system in the NTSB article. Removed. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• I am also slightly confused on the fact that the RTGs failed in St. Louis by 1974, but Amtrak chose to order RTL sets just a year later that had the same problems listed for the failure in St. Louis.
  • Well, they lasted elsewhere for longer periods. Documentation for why Amtrak ordered the RTLs for New York service is lacking. I'm always looking for more information. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Also, the multiple references to Amtrak working with New York, what exactly are we defining as New York? The state government? The MTA?
  • In all cases this would be the state government. I've updated the section. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• What exactly was involved in the RTL-III upgrades, besides a new coat of paint?
  • I don't know. I've looked for a non-railfan source which describes the RTL-III specification in detail. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Is there any explanation for the fire on an RGL-II in New York, was it something wrong with the train itself?
  • None that I've found; it appears the train was blamed. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• The statement that Amtrak was not enthusiastic about gas-turbines and fixed-capacity sets is POV and has no reference to back it.
  • Removed, although it can be inferred from Amtrak's behavior. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• There is also mention in the introduction of Amtrak wanting faster trains as well as newer trains, but there is no reference to speed being a factor in buying the trains later in the article. Is there a reference for their desire to increase speed as well?
  • Amtrak emphasized the maximum speed of the Turboliners in promotional materials, though of course track speeds didn't allow it. Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As for the rest of your responses, specifically the lack of references for some questions I raised, do you feel the topic is adequately covered for GA status? If you feel the article needs further referencing to cover the topic correctly, perhaps a withdrawal or delay of the GAN might be necessary? The³5₉ (Talk) 00:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well I would draw a distinction between missing sources and topics not fully explored because sources do not exist or are not available. I think the coverage is broad enough--it summarizes the equipment and its use across four decades of American railroading. It (I think) explains the differing nomenclature of the models without getting bogged down in minutiae. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No worries, I just wasn't to make sure after the things I thought of were coming up empty if you felt the topic was properly covered. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Everything seems to be checking out now, so congrats, you have another GA under your belt. The³5₉ (Talk) 09:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@The359: thank you, this one means a lot. This article's come a long, long way. I appreciate your attention to detail during this review. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)