| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because it's expanded to the point where I'm thinking about good article status, but I've had trouble striking a balance between global coverage and summarizing the topic adequately. I've tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to avoid burdening the article with railfan jargon and I'd welcome an outside perspective.
Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Since you're thinking about GA, here are some thoughts based on the GA criteria. I'll add comments as I go through; might take me a day or two to finish.
- The lead seems a little short at just one paragraph.
- You have citation needed and page needed tags in the "Derivatives" section which will need to be cleaned up.
- Uncited sentence in "Brazil".
That's everything I can see for GA. The article is in good shape and I think it would pass pretty easily. A couple of other points occurred to me, not necessary for GA.
- Can any comment be made about why Budd stopped making RDCs in 1962 but didn't consider a replacement design till the late 1970s? Was there little market for DMUs?
- You mention in one or two places that RDCs are still in use by some railways; I'd suggest qualifying these with "as of 2016", e.g. in the Brazil section.
- You don't need to include anything in "See also" that is already linked in the article, such as the Roger Williams, or SPV-2000.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! I don't recall a source making an explicit comment on this, but new orders of passenger equipment in the United States (outside of subway/rapid transit) dried up after the mid-1950s. I suspect there simply wasn't demand until the RDCs began needing replacement and the growth of state and federal support created a new market for passenger equipment. For whatever reason, DMUs have had trouble gaining acceptance in the US. Mackensen (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)