Talk:City of Denver (train)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 07:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, and return to the lead at the end. Can I suggest that you mark any issues fixed with comments or maybe the  Done template. I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the text difficult to read at a later date, and it is an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

History

• By the end of 1935 the Union Pacific already operated four articulated streamliners: the M-10000 (City of Salina), M-10001 (City of Portland), M-10002 (City of Los Angeles), and M-10004 (City of San Francisco). Suggest this needs some context. It should be linked to Union Pacific Railroad here, as well as in the lead. We need to know roughly their area of operation, details of what an "articulated streamliner" is, the fact that the M-10000 etc refers to individual train sets, and brief details of where the named trains ran between.

•  Done Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• In December the Union Pacific and C&NW... C&NW needs spelling out in the body of the article, and linked.

•  Done Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• At the same time the Burlington had ordered... Again, the Burlington needs spelling out in full, and if you want to use Burlington as a shorthand for it, (which reads much better than CB&QR), then this should be stated. So "Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad, commonly known as the Burlington."

•  Done Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• modeled on the pioneering Pioneer Zephyr. Suggest we need to know why it was pioneering.

•  Done Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• the Burlington deployed two of its existing trainsets, ... to the route. Did they actually run on the same route, or just between the same destinations?

•  Done Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• the three-car sets in no way compared to amenities the 12-car UP streamliners provided. Suggest we need to know what sort of amenities are referred to here. Also UP has not been introduced, but since "Union Pacific" is quite short, I would tend to use their title rather than an acronym, as it reads so much better.

•  Done Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• which included the "Frontier Shack" tavern, a dining-cocktail lounge, and sleeper-lounge-observation car. Needs to be "and a sleeper..." or "and sleeper-lounge-observation cars", as appropriate.

•  Done Mackensen (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• within a year the Milwaukee Road's Super Domes... Milwaukee Road needs introducing in the body of the article. It is mentioned again in the final sentence of this paragraph, and that would be a more obvious place to do so. Since the final sentence occurs in the middle of the period covered by the rest of the paragraph, one solution might be to move that sentence to the beginning, or to the end of the previous paragraph. It would not be strictly chronological, but it isn't now, anyway.

•  Done Reworded to be chronological. Mackensen (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Amtrak preferred the Burlington's route between Chicago and Denver, the City of Denver made its last run on April 30, 1971. This is not quite a sentence, and needs a gentler lead-in, I suggest. So "Following Amtrak's takeover of passenger train operation in 1971, they preferred the Burlington's route between Chicago and Denver, and so the City of Denver made its last run on April 30, 1971." or similar.

•  Done Mackensen (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Route

• By an odd coincidence new route was exactly as long as the previous one: 1,048 miles (1,687 km). Suggest a little introduction, and removing the colon. So: "Although the new route took 20 minutes longer, by an odd coincidence it was exactly the same length as the previous one, at 1,048 miles (1,687 km)." or similar.

•  Done Mackensen (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Equipment

• devoted to a kitchen/bar area Suggest "devoted to a kitchen and bar area" to avoid slash (see WP:MOS).

•  Done Mackensen (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• The sleeper-lounge-observation car included a compartment and five more double bedrooms. The rear observation area seated 22. The cars were air-conditioned throughout. Short sentences. Suggest improving flow by joining two of them together with a preposition.

•  Done Mackensen (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Each of the two new consists included the following: baggage car, coach-lounge (the "Pub", replacing the "Frontier Shack")... Suggest "... a baggage car, a coach-louge..." to match the style of the rest of the sentence.

•  Done Mackensen (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• After the discontinuance of the Olympian Hiawatha in 1961... Suggest adding where it ran between, rather than just the train name.

•  Done Mackensen (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

That is the text reviewed. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

References

• It has not been possible to check all of the references, as some of them are from books to which the reviewer does not have access. However, approximately half of the refs are available on line, and in all cases, the text as written is adequately supported by the reference cited.

• In the bibliography, most of the list is in alphabetical order, but Welsh (2008) and Wayner (1972) are in the wrong order.

•  Done. Gah. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead should introduce the article and summarise its main points. It feels just a little short for the length of the article, but it is difficult to know what else could reasonably be included to redress this, so unless you have any inspiration, I think we can leave it as is.

The formal bit

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments above

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments above

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• That is the review completed. It hardly seems worth putting it on hold, since you have already addressed most of the issues raised. Another interesting article, which should soon qualify as a GA. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Bob1960evens: Fixed the reference ordering. I don't have any inspiration on the lead, save getting further into the weeds on equipment assignments. Mackensen (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• All issues have now been addressed. I am pleased to award the article GA status. It has been a pleasure working with you on tweaking this and the other two articles that have been assessed recently. Keep up the good work! Bob1960evens (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)