Talk:Amtrak paint schemes/GA1

GA Review

RESULT

Promoted to GA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Spinningspark (talk · contribs) 08:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please post your replies either after my review or with an indented comment after each item. Please do not strike any item or add ticks or other graphic symbols. SpinningSpark 08:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is generally in a good state. The biggest problem on first impression is the overuse of capitals. While MOS:CAPS is not a GA requirement, it does stand out as an obvious non-compliance and in places it is done inconsistently which gets it into GA criterion 1a "well written" territory.

Lead

The capitalisation of Phase when used generically looks very wrong to me. It might be ok to capitalise when referring to a specific phase, but the generic use goes against MOS:CAPS in spirit at least. In any case, the capitalisation is not entirely consistent with at least one lc phase already in the article. Entire article needs checking for this.

Done Amtrak uses the capitalized version in official documents, and third-party sources tend to as well - it should be treated as a proper noun. I agree that it looks a bit odd, but it seems to be consistent. I've fixed the non-capitalized uses.

As I said below, I don't really agree with this article's use of caps, but I'm passing this item for GA and moving on. SpinningSpark 22:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead associates Amtrak colour schemes with the US flag. This information is not in the article body, nor is it cited.

Done Changed the wording to refer more generally to the national colors. Added a citation under Phase I.

"The phases are referred in numerical sequential order using in Roman numerals." The grammar of that sentence needs sorting out.

Done

"...all equipment..." would all rolling stock be better here? Equipment can include spanners after all.

Done I've changed to "rolling stock" in several possibly confusing places.

Rainbow Era

consist is not a well known term. Please either wikilink or gloss

Done Linked to the wiktionary entry.

Phase I

Colour names like "platinum mist" are not generally treated as proper names in running text. I think the same applies to logo elements like "pointless arrow". Possibly also the nickname "bloody nose". It's not the name of a specific train after all+.

Not done "Platinum Mist" (the official name of a color) is definitely a proper noun; it and "Bloody Nose" are both capitalized in Amtrak sources. "Pointless Arrow" commonly is as well, though I'll probably decap it. Railroads and railfans, for whatever reason, seem to like capitalizing things.

Phase II

The "Lounge" in "Sightseer Lounge" should be lc, as it is in the linked page.

Done

Phase III

"...the outer white pinstripes were replaced..." Doesn't say what they were replaced with. Or is the meaning that they were removed?

Done Fixed the wording.

"Travelmark", please explain, wikilink or gloss. There seems to be a whole plethora of organisations calling themselves this

Done Improved wording.

"Pepsi Cans" > "Pepsi cans"

Not done sources definitely use the caps on this one

"Pepsi-Can" (in image caption), inconsistent use of dashes.

Done

Could we also perhaps add the Phase III non-revenue scheme? It doesn't get a lot of attention and many who know of its existence have no idea what Phase it is. GenesisFan99 (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phase IV

There is a citation needed tag here

Partially done commented the sentence out for now. I'll try to find a citation, but for now it's not a terribly important detail.

Phase V

"cabbage cars". This is piped to cab car which redirects to control car which does not explain the linked term till halfway down the article. If it is really necessary to use the informal name without explanation, at least direct the link to the relevant place.

Done

"Express Box Car", probably overcap again, but it should at least be consistent with the caption which has "Express boxcar"

Done Appears to be a proper noun, but I'll look at my books later to check that

Route-specific paint schemes

"Five state-funded corridor routes" the link goes to a table that lists many more than five state supported routes so it is not clear what the link is meant to tell the reader. Also, one would expect the subsections to list the five routes, but its hard to get five from that. I'm guessing it's three in California, plus the Cascades, plus the one in "Other routes" that is not defunct, the Piedmont, but I shouldn't have to guess. In any case, numeric claims should be cited. If we are not certain that it is five and only five then the wording should be changed to something less precise such as "some".

Partially done I listed the five routes in the top of the section. I think that five is reasonable to say when followed by a list of five items, but I can change to "Several" if really necessary.

What you have done is fine, that clarifies the material that follows nicely. SpinningSpark 07:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak California

"nod to the former use of the Comet IB". Is this cited? I'm not seeing it

Partially done Commented out for now, as I can't find a good source.

Non-revenue equipment

caps issues "Phase", "Express Box Car"

Not done Kept as proper nouns.

Test train schemes

"...it was pulled by two Siemens F69PHAC diesel locomotives and a baggage car..." That needs rewording. Presumably the baggage car is not doing any pulling.

Done baggage car was a trivial detail

All in all, a comprehensive, well written article. The fixes needed are, for the most part, pretty minor. SpinningSpark 08:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very detailed review! I've marked off my first round of changes; most were easy to do, though two minor uncited points I had to comment out for lack of a good source. I did not make some of the capitalization changes you noted - a number of terms tend to be capitalized in railroad usage, even when they often would not be in other contexts. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't press the issue of capitalisation because it does not fall under the GA requirements anyway, but let me explain my understanding of the issue. It is a common error on Wikipedia to capitalise terms because the source has capitalised them. Proper nouns should always be capitalised, but other uses are a matter of house style, and our house style is to minimise its use. It's the same principle we would use on, for instance, varieties of English. The house style (for this article) is to write in American English, regardless of the usage in the source. As you point out, technical and specialist publications are fond of capitalising everything, but it does not follow that it is widely accepted that the term is normally capitalised. The test I would use is would (or do) dictionaries show it capitalised in their entry? SpinningSpark 09:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'll try to apply that test here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to mention the issue of overdependence on primary sources. I'm not going to make it a review point at this stage, but I want to put it out there because I have some concern. I noticed while I was reviewing that the article heavily depends on official Amtrak documents, but decided it was not really an issue as far as notability was concerned since paint schemes are just the sort of thing that get endlessly discussed by rail enthusiasts and I didn't really need to look into that. There is nothing wrong with using primary sources (with care) but secondary sources are still needed to show that primary sources aren't being misinterpreted, used with undue weight, or subtly promoting a POV. The sheer weight of primary refs, the discussion on the talk page asking an Amtrak employee to publish an internal document so it can be cited, and the insertion while this review is still ongoing all start to raise the question of do secondary sources exist? As I said, I'm not making this an actionable review point, but I did feel it needed documenting. SpinningSpark 09:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to use reliable secondary sources where they are available. Unfortunately, this is a topic where incorrect information has been repeated and amplified at times - hence why the internal document was created, and then shared with a hobbyist community - so for some pieces of information the primary sources are going to be best. If you feel that there is not reliable enough information available to pass this as a GA, that's well within your rights as reviewer. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Amtrak employee in question created the document. He had his edits reversed because nobody would listen. It's actually his job to provide the correct information, hence why I provided the document after his edits were reversed. The Phase VI topic is so controversial because for the longest time there was no correct information. Nobody knows any better until they've seen the document. GenesisFan99 (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've nicely summarised there everything I find problematic about this. SpinningSpark 15:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If more correct sources existed, believe me, we'd use them. It would seem that Matt Donnelly's predecessors did not take branding as seriously as he does. GenesisFan99 (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please give the abbreviation "NPCU" in full on first use. SpinningSpark 22:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gave the full version on first use in prose (the Phase V cabbage car rewrite); I wikilinked an earlier use in a caption.

@SpinningSpark: I believe I've addressed all of your points. Please let me know if there are more changes to make. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting to GA, well done everyone involved. SpinningSpark 07:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.