Talk:Hi-Level/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Concertmusic (talk · contribs) 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Opening statement

Grabbing this article for a re-review, per the short discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Second opinion for a promoted article?. Hopefully you won't regret asking for a 2nd review! :)

After reading it through several times (and I always read it more than once before I ever agree to do a GA review), this article appears to be in very good shape for GA, especially in the light that this is a 2nd review. It's an informative and enjoyable read, and I learned quite a bit.

As I usually do, I will make detailed comments below, and will explain any high-level GA-specific points in the Assessment section. Also as usual, I will make numerous comments that may improve the article in my opinion, but are not strictly necessary to pass the GA review. Please feel free to take them or leave them. Anything that must be updated to meet the GA criteria will be highlighted as such.

Comments

Generally, I will try to indicate a suggested edit by saying "I would", versus an edit that should or must be made, where I say "please add" or the like.

• General punctuation comment: I would personally add commas in a few places, but won't point out each instance here. If you'd like, I can do that addition myself as part of this review - please advise. Just one example: In this sentence in the Lead section "In 1979, the first Superliners, based on the Hi-Level concept, though built by Pullman-Standard, began entering service.", there should be two commas added, as I have shown by inserting them in the preceding sentence. I would also change the "though" to "although" in that same sentence - "although" simply reads better in that case.
  • Thank you. I've added some while copyediting elsewhere. Please feel free to add others as you see fit. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

• Reference: I am assuming that all of the facts found in the Infobox come from the referenced book by John H. White, which I don't have access to. Please confirm, but if that is not the case, please put separate references on each fact.
  • Yes. The facts in the infobox are either cited to White or found in the main text and cited there. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• CE: Opening sentence: Totally personal preference on my part, but I would have Hi-Level bolded in the opening sentence, and use coaches as the descriptor, as opposed to doing Hi-Levels - just to make that emphasized opening repetition of the subject as clear as possible. In other words, the final result would be: "The Hi-Level coaches are..."
  • My only issue with doing so is that coach has a specific meaning, but the fleet includes other types. I re-worded to achieve a similar effect. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• CE: 3rd sentence - please see above in the general punctuation comment on replacing "though" with "although".

• Addition suggestion: You have this data in the Infobox, but I think it would be interesting to provide the core stats on total made versus total still in service. A sentence like "Of the total of 73 Hi-Lite coaches built, 5 are still in service today", either as a lead-in to the last sentence, or elsewhere in the Lead.
  • It's a good suggestion; I'm thinking on the wording. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Background

• CE: I would add "railway" after "Santa Fe" in the 1st sentence, as that helps to clarify what "Santa Fe" is, even though it's stated in the Lead. I have no issue with doing that just once per paragraph, and leaving it with just "Santa Fe's" in the 2nd sentence. You could go so far as to add "Railway" again in the 3rd sentence, however - alternating the use with and without description. Your choice, or leave it as is.
  • I'm going to push back, because "Santa Fe Railway" is a shorthand I rather dislike and I don't want to suggest it. I think "Santa Fe" is pretty clear. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification request: In the 4th sentence, please clarify what you mean by this statement: "and often operated in multiple sections".
  • This means that the Santa Fe ran multiple iterations of the train on the same day--a first section and a second section. I've expanded the text. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reference: I am assuming that all of the facts found in the Background section come from the referenced journal, which I don't have access to. Please confirm, but if that is not the case, please put separate references on each fact.
  • Yes; the entire paragraph is sourced to the journal. This is out of convenience only; there are other sources which discuss the El Capitan. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Design

• CE: 2nd sentence: Please add "upper" to this sentence fragment: "Seating occupied the entire upper level...".
  • Bah. Done. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reference 3: This is the only real issue I have from a GA criteria perspective: It appears that the Popular Science reference #3 is used for the sentence "A central staircase linked the two levels." In reading that article, it appears to support the previous sentence, but not that particular fact, as a staircase is not mentioned at all. If you are using the reference to get readers to look at the diagram of the coach running across the top of the pages in the magazine, that might be okay, but should be clearly stated in some way. However, if that is the case, the picture in Schafer & Wclsh is quite a bit better in my opinion. Please review and advise thoughts.
  • Heh, I didn't even look for a citation for that (I've been aboard both Hi-Levels and Supeliners and I know that stairs there)! It's mentioned in Flick and Krogan and I've added a cite. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• CE: 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: I would add "orginally", just to clarify that seemingly self-standing sentence - the the next sentence makes better sense: "Budd originally built the Hi-Levels with steam heating."
  • Good catch. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification request: 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: "When Amtrak began converting its inherited fleet to head-end power in 1970s the Santa Fe handled the conversion of the Hi-Levels in its Topeka, Kansas shops." What does the fact that Amtrak is converting have to do with Santa Fe doing so - how do the two entities, or efforts, relate to each other? If you clarify here, you won't have to do it again down below in History, as the transition from Santa Fe to Amtrak is not clear there either. Alternatively, clarify in History, and you should be okay to leave this sentence without change.
  • Clarified below that Amtrak took over the Santa Fe's trains and acquired the Hi-Levels. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Coaches

• Clarification request: In the 1st sentence, you differentiate between a capacity for either 68 and 72 passengers, You then explain that the 68-passenger variety has "step down" stairs - but it is not clear how the 72-passenger variety differs to increase the number to 72.
  • The stairs take up space which could be used for seating. Clarified. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Addition suggestion: To further clarify the total number of cars built, I would add something like "The 61 coaches built could carry..." in the opening sentence, and then also add the count for the lounges and dining cars in their respective sections at the start of each opening sentence. That little factoid will really reinforce clarity on the numbers of cars in question.
  • Good suggestion; done. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Santa Fe

• CE: In the 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, please wikilink consist.
  • Done. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• CE: Please change "not" to "standard" in the following sentence to make that description consistent: "To augment capacity, the Santa Fe ordered an additional 24 coaches in 1963–1964; 12 step-down (538–549) and 12 not (725–736)."
  • Done. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Amtrak

• See last comment above under "Design".
  • Addressed above. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• CE: 2nd sentence: Please add "the": "Amtrak used the Hi-Levels as the basis for the design of the Superliners it ordered from Pullman-Standard, which began arriving in 1978."
  • Done. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• CE: 3rd sentence: Please add "of": "In the 1980s Amtrak rebuilt many of the coaches as dormitory-coaches, with half of the car given over to crew space."
  • Done. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Addition suggestion: At the end of the final sentence, you could add a closing comment, something like ", and which are the last five Hi-Level cars in use today."
  • Done. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary

Outside of the bolded Reference 3 item above, there is nothing standing in the way of passing this GA review. I will hold off on taking that step until you have had a chance to review and comment, but I will congratulate you on a really good article now! Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Concertmusic, you have made a number of clarification requests that seem to be appropriate. Given this, I would have to say that until they are addressed, the "clear and concise" criterion is not met. Even if they are minor, they are nonetheless things that ought to be fixed prior to a successful conclusion to the review. The same would be true of typos or other minor grammatical flubs: until they are fixed, the article should not be promoted. I am very glad that this article has had a full review—thank you for being willing to take it on—and look forward to seeing it pass once these issues have been taken care of. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You make a valid point, and I hope I've addressed these concerns. I very much appreciate the extended review. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Mackensen, it's an interesting article, and I'm sorry you had that initial problematic review. I'd like to make one more suggestion: although under History, in the Santa Fe section's middle paragraph, you've wikilinked the term "consist", I'd like to suggest that you replace it with a more general wording. Since "consist" is also a regular word that almost makes sense in this context, it reads more like the wording is in error than that a technical term is being employed. (Also, the wikilinked page requires you to scroll down to find the term, which is not very friendly.) Since I know what "consist" means in English, I ran right past the wikilink and into trouble, which makes the passage less clear than it ought to be. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Good suggestion; I've rewritten the passage. Mackensen (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Mackensen, BlueMoonset: I appreciate the very quick response and feedback. The article is in great shape, and deserves its status as a Good Article. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

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

   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:

   The references used appear to be excellent; the few I able to check and read were thorough and complete, and correctly used. Reference #3 has an open question, as seen above. This has been fixed.

   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):

   I see no issues with the section "Design", or any other section, from a Focus perspective.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is no neutrality issue whatsoever, as the article does not make any claims that are not supported, and states facts, not opinions. I frankly do not understand the neutrality comments of the GA1 reviewer.

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: