Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hi-Level/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2018 [1].

Hi-Level[edit]

Nominator(s): Mackensen (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Hi-Level is a bilevel intercity railcar which ran in the United States from 1954–2018. It entered service in 1954 with the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway's El Capitan. It was the first type of bilevel intercity railcar in the United States. The Hi-Levels remained in service with Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator in the United States, from 1971–2018, after the end of most private sector passenger service in the United States. Their design influenced the Superliner, which entered service in 1978 and remains the backbone of Amtrak's fleet west of the Mississippi River. The article was promoted to GA status in February 2016; I've just finished a major expansion. Mackensen (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tintor2[edit]

Nice article. I don't know too much but there are somethings that might be worth checking:

  • Are the notes in the infobox necessary. Unless we are dealing with controversial information I would advise removing them.
  • The background section uses a single source. Is it possible to use another one? I know it's an introduction to another article though.
  • "Summary" sounds a bit redundant. Reference 13 and a possible other one could also serve as a source.
  • Archived the five online sources. FAs need them in case the url ever gets deleted.

That's all I have to say. Ping me or mention me when you think that you are finished. I'm not too used with these types of articles so some comments I made might be wrong. Also, a fellow user and me made this FAC and I would appreciate your feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tintor2: Thanks for your feedback. Notes in the infobox are common with rail transport articles because some information isn't in the main text, and unsourced information has a habit of creeping in. Background could easily be sourced from multiple places; Flick and Krogan simply told the whole story. I'll add some sources. The "Summary" section is modeled on Superliner (railcar)#Summary and I think a useful callout. The road numbers, in particular, aren't elsewhere in the main text but there are readers who will want them. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support it then. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: I've added some sources and expanded the background section a little. Mackensen (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work.Tintor2 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 9: The main link isn't going to the headlined page of the Chicago Tribune – how does one get there? Also I'm getting timeouts on the archive link.
  • Ref 13: A similiar problem: neither main nor archived links go to the headline page.
  • Format issues: please choose a single format for archive dates. Also as to when you add retrieval dates.
  • Ref 29: Why is this source reliable? There are no publisher details; the site contains the message: "Site not affiliated to Amtrak"
  • Ref 55: Harvard error ("Welch")

Otherwise sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your feedback, I've tried to address all your points:
    • Reference 9: It appears that the Chicago Tribune has moved to Newspapers.com for its archives. I've clipped the article and re-done the reference.
    • Reference 13: I made a deliberate choice to link to the metadata instead of the PDF, because it'll download directly from Amtrak's website without context. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.
    • Reference 29: The site isn't affiliated with Amtrak, but the diagrams almost certainly came from an Amtrak source at some point. You can see a refreshed version on an official site; it's the same style. I've replaced it.
    • Reference 55: gah, fixed.
    • Format: all dates are consistent now.
  • Best, Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "first-class lounge service on the Coast Starlight through February 4, 2018." "until February 4, 2018" would be clearer for British readers.
  • I would add a paragraph about the fate of the Hi-Levels, if the information is available. Were they all demolished or are some preserved in museums etc, and if so, where?
  • Support. Just a couple of minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dudley Miles: Thanks for the feedback. No preservations thus far that I'm aware of. Corridor Capital owns most of the cars, but reliable information is thin. I've added a sentence. I incorporated your suggestion into the lead as well. Mackensen (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon[edit]

Having been on a similar one years ago, I could not resist the opportunity to review this short and sweet article, nicely illustrated. I have no train knowledge, so with that caveat, my comments below:

  • infobox says 15 feet 6 inches but main text 15.5, maybe better to have consistent notation. Same with 4.7m in text but 4.72 in infobox. The main text has 2 decimals for 0.61 so probably best for consistency to use 4.72 in text
    • Griswold said 15 1/2 ft, so I've settled on that. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • links: MOS:REPEATLINK suggests for example Santa Fe in Background section should be linked again, and Budd Company in History should be delinked
  • I found the separation between Background and History by the Design section odd. I think swapping the Design and History sections might work better
  • Fred Frailey, Twilight of the Great Trains, --> that last comma .. is something meant to follow?
  • or retrofitting them --> stylistically not the prettiest (not a fan of that "or", plus the "them" takes effort to understand it's not the parts you're referring to)
  • ISBN numbers, I've been told, should all be same format (e.g., all isbn 13). https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter could help
  • should Wayner, Robert J., ed. (1972) perhaps precede Wayner, Robert J., ed. (1973) ?
  • question: is there anything about any difficulties or limitations when they designed the cars to be 2 feet higher than normal? Was there a standard tunnel height?
    • Not in the Santa Fe's territory, which was mostly wide-open plains and desert. I've taken the Chicago-Los Angeles train a couple times and the only tunnel I can recall is the one within the Raton Pass. I've never seen clearances mentioned as a design constraint. Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All fine. Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Recusing on coordinator on this one as I think we were a little light on review. A first read through looks good, and I'm inclined to support this. Just two general queries from me. Sarastro (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Santa Fe introduced the El Capitan in 1938": I think we need to say a little about the El Capitan here; we describe it in the lead but not in the main body.
  • "Amtrak took over operation of most intercity passenger service in the United States in 1971, including the Santa Fe's remaining trains.": Can we give a little context to this? It's probably generally known, but would set the article in a wider context. Sarastro (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sarastro1: thank you for your feedback and copyediting. There's a paragraph on the El Capitan in Hi-Level#Background; do you think more is needed? I've added a few sentences explaining what Amtrak is. Best, Mackensen (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm convinced by the replies, and I think we have enough on El Capitan, if I'm honest. I'm happy now that this meets the criteria. Nice piece of work. Sarastro (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • Have we had an image review? If not, you can request one at the top of WT:FAC.
  • There are several duplinks in the article so pls review.
  • There's a harv error at FN22, which looks like it's caused by a conflict in the author name -- Thoms vs. Thomas -- I can see in WorldCat that both are used but you need to keep it consistent here.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Ian Rose:. I've requested an image review and addressed the DUPLINKS. The reference error was caused by the template using author instead of first and last name (no idea how that happened) and I've fixed that as well. Best, Mackensen (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the quick review! The NARA images were uploaded as part of a cooperation with the National Archives and Records Administration. The images were bot-uploaded. I can't speak to the publication date for the postcard, though there isn't much doubt the image was published prior to 1978. Mackensen (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jo-Jo, can I confirm if we're good to go with image licensing now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry[edit]

  • taller than most conventional equipment Did this cause any issues with clearance/guageing? Did it restrict the availability?
  • vestibules connected the upper levels only I know what a vestibule is and I know it's linked, but I feel we should offer the reader a definition here, especially since the linked "Vestibuled train" opens with the somewhat circular "A vestibuled train is a passenger train whose cars have enclosed vestibules".

That's it from me. An enjoyable read and I'm really struggling to find anything much to criticise, so support regardless of what you decide to do with the above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the feedback! Clearances were only an issue east of the Mississippi River; most sources only discuss them in the context of the Superliners. I've added a sentence. I've reworded the bit about vestibules to explain their function. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hi-Level/archive1&oldid=837623498"