Talk:Chicago and North Western 1385

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chicago and North Western 1385/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Someone who likes train writing (talk · contribs) 20:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 15:10, 7 July 2024 (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, as shown by a source spot-check. 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:
· · ·

You have work to do, but you can do it. Pull back a little bit on the historical detail. It's tough, but this is not Anorakipedia, and sometimes specialized topic editors have to learn to shear their sheep and write at summary style. (I am familiar with this dynamic in my own specialty.) A description of the train would also help a lot. There are also various copy tweaks, especially MOS:GEOCOMMA. Ping me when done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Trainsandotherthings in case there's any specialist train advice I'm missing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that there's quite an excessive amount of detail on the history, but I think it's fine, if not for the lack of other sections. Certainly a section of the train specifications and design would have been in order.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m still figuring out which unnecessary info I should remove from this page at the moment. I did add some descriptions of the locomotive itself towards the top, but if I need to describe it differently or more thoroughly, let me know. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I like to say that an article with bad writing but good sources can become good, but no amount of prose changes will make an article with bad sourcing good. We are in the first category (not that the writing here is actually "bad" at all, but you catch my drift). My point is that the fundamentals of the article are quite good and you've assembled an excellent collection of reliable sources. Writing for a general audience and adhering to summary style are some of the most difficult skills to learn on Wikipedia (we are taught persuasive writing in schools, not academic writing), and I can't say I'm perfect at them myself. It helps to picture someone with only a passing familiarity with trains and think about what questions they might have or things they might not understand. For example, at my current FAC, a reviewer asked what a tender was, and I realized I had not provided a wikilink to tender (rail). You or I know what a tender is, of course, but many people do not. I've asked friends to read my Wikipedia writing and point out things that are confusing or too technical, because sometimes I miss them. For example, you write Since it had several months of flue time left, which begs the question what flue time means. Most people would have no idea.

I think much of what needs to be done here isn't removing information so much as condensing it. I'll give you an example: The discovered cause of the failure was a nipple bolt breaching open, resulting in one superheater unit bending out of shape. The removal, repairs, and re-installation of the superheater took twelve hours for twenty members and all the museum volunteers to complete, and the progress was monitored and televised by a Milwaukee television crew. These sentences contain a lot of technical detail. While they show you have a strong understanding of the subject, I'm a train fanatic and even I don't know what a nipple bolt is. I would condense this, and some earlier sentences, into something along the lines of On July 7, 1987, No. 1385 was tasked to lead that year's Great Circus Train, but as it began to depart Baraboo, the R-1 suffered a superheater failure and sputtered. Upon return to the MCMR, the failure was traced to a faulty bolt, and the superheater was repaired by volunteers in twelve hours. The repairs were documented by a television crew from Milwaukee. My version cuts the character count from 664 characters to 360, while still hitting on the key points. I may not have done this perfectly and if there's anything important I cut out it can be added back in, but I hope it shows the idea I'm pressing upon that you can convey the same information more concisely. The key points from this paragraph are the superheater failure, and that the museum volunteers did the repair in record time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

My apologies for being so late to come to this. Shortly before your last comment, @Someone who likes train writing, I lost my mother. It has been an emotionally tough last few days.

What @Trainsandotherthings has said is very astute. In my field of TV stations, we are dealing with this kind of density issue with pages written by a specific user that are better-referenced than most non-GAs in the field but make for impossible reads. My most recent major project is KOCB, in which I sheared the sheep and reduced the readable prose size by 56.6% from the existing text. It takes time to understand what is actually important and worth keeping, not shearing off.

My big continuing issue with the page as it stands now is the lack of a level-2 header, equivalent to History, on the train's design and physical description. I won't promote this until I see that. Right now, it feels a bit lopsided. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie Firstly, again, my condolences for your loss. I can imagine your life will not be the same after this.🙏

Secondly, I will have to look at the magazine issue I have about the R-1 class’ design, in order to add more to the locomotive’s design section, if expanding it is all you’re asking for now. I can’t make any promises about its top speed, though. If any of the sources I’ve used mentioned its top speed, I would have already put that in long ago.

Also, the pages of Norfolk and Western 611, Union Pacific 4014, and Atlantic Coast Line 1504—all pages with the GA grade—have their design section beneath the “History” header. Is that allowed in a GA page, or do I have to make it its own separate level-2 header, in the case of the 1385 page? Someone who likes train writing (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Someone who likes train writing Those pages are shorter. I think this one commands a second Level 2 heading. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie I might get around to expanding the design section of the page tomorrow, as I’ve spent most of today working at my real job. One thing I want to know for sure is that do you want the design section to be as long as the entire history section, or at least as long as one of the Level 3 sections, like the Revenue Service or the Early preservation years ones? Someone who likes train writing (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It can be the length of a history Level 3, @Someone who likes train writing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie Alright, I’ve just expanded the design header. Is there anything else that you think needs to be done for the header or the page, overall? Someone who likes train writing (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with the article as is now. Having the second L2 header helps a lot. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you know? If you fancy doing so, I always have plenty of GA nominees to review. Just look for the all-uppercase titles in the Television section. Reviews always appreciated.

Topline fixes

There are two broad changes that are needed:

• Reduce the detail level a notch. This article can get quite weedy and detailed.
• Add a description of the train itself, like you might find for a National Register–listed historic building. This will likely be drawn from information in the nomination form.

Copy changes

Throughout this article:

• MOS:GEOCOMMA prescribes commas after state names in constructions such as between Baraboo and Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the to between Baraboo and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for the (though that one doesn't actually need to specify Wisconsin).
• "R-1s", not "R-1's" (also, "F7s", not "F7's")

Lead

• from a lack of funding maybe "due to" instead of "from"

History

• Ten-Wheeler or Ten-wheeler?
• MOS:SEASON generally counsels against using seasons for time references, which you do a lot. Is this a characteristic inherited from the source material?
• In 1972, the museum purchased a smaller tender (No. X-263579) from the C&NW, and it was formerly paired with an older R-1, holding a capacity of 5,400 U.S. gallons (20,441 L) of water and 9 tonnes (8.9 long tons; 9.9 short tons) of coal. Odd use of "formerly" here. What is being intended? Was X-263579 previously paired with the older R-1? If so, the sentence structure is at fault and you should try In 1972, the museum purchased a smaller tender (No. X-263579) from the C&NW; it had been paired with an older R-1, holding a capacity of 5,400 U.S. gallons (20,441 L) of water and 9 tonnes (8.9 long tons; 9.9 short tons) of coal.
• Might it make sense to render "Vice President-Transportation" as "vice president of transportation"?
• "Milwaukee-area" no need for hyphen
• Do named trains need to be in quotes and italicized? Probably should be only the italics. Names of events and organizations need neither quotes nor italics.
• "Solemn promise"? That's an odd one.

Sourcing and spot checks

Encouragement: Get set up with Newspapers.com via the Wikipedia Library to clip news articles (I did this for the 1994 Baraboo item as an example). This will make your life easier if you use a lot of historic newspapers. I can provide further assistance. User:Sammi Brie/Clipping is my guide to clipping articles for Wikipedia use (something I'm highly familiar with, as I have on the order of 35,000 clippings).

My typical practice is to do a random spot-check, but I can't spot-check the offline sources, nor do I have access to the run of Trains, so I've had to be a bit judicious in what I can spot-check. The references I can't look to be reliable specialist material.

• 12: Things look good. I'd ideally replace with the original State Journal piece, but given its length, it might be paywalled. Thank you, CNN Newsource!
• 54: I clipped this, so I can check it.
• 62: While he bought some new tools for the job, Roudebush had to custom make others himself to do the work required. Y

Images

The article has three images: a Carol Highsmith PD image and two images with CC licenses. No issues. Encouragement: Add alt text for users with screen readers. (I see this was done since I started)

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.