Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royal Blue (B&O train)

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 00:10, 12 March 2008.

---

Royal Blue (B&O train)

Check external links

Self-nom. The Royal Blue had a number of historic firsts in railroading and was a major influence on the industry in America and the world. I feel it's ready for a FAC review. JGHowes ^talk - 14:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Support

• "FAC Review" did you coin that just now? I've heard of FA Review, Peer Review, but not FAC Review.
• Thanks for linking to Pennsylvania Railroad - I had no idea it was such a powerful company.
• I find it very strange that it is both train and train line, that no mention of the "end" of the trains (what happened to them? moved to another line?), and no mention of the end of the line in the lead.

--Kiyarrllston 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now, mainly because I find it thoroughly confusing that the article is named as though it's about a single train, starts out describing a single train, yet goes on to cover the entire train line. Admittedly I'm a ship geek, not a train geek, but there has to be a less confusing way to present this. Also have some copyedit concerns:

• "(originally, the Royal Limited)" - no comma necessary
• "between New York City and Washington, D. C." - there is no space in D.C.; also, it's causing a line wrap in the middle of the abbreviation
• Italics are really inconsistently applied to train names and train line names.
• "In the 1890s–early 20th century era" - this is really awkward

• Better, but I still dislike 'era' here, and for that matter also in "During the 1937–1958 era" and "the 1890s-era Royal Blue Line". It's not really proper use of the term; even in colloquial use an era is a period of time characterized by something, not merely a sequence of years. The "Victorian era" makes sense; the "1837-1901 era" does not.

• "with Gold leaf trim" - no reason to capitalize gold
• "Prior to 1884, both the B&O and Pennsylvania Railroad used the independent Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad (PW&B) between Baltimore, Maryland, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for their New York–Washington freight and passenger trains." - second comma unnecessary
• "However, the new line presented problems in Baltimore" - 'however' doesn't add much here
• "Powered by high-drivered 4-6-0 locomotives" - explain for us train morons please

• Better - but can 'high-drivered' be explained also?

• The beginning of the 1918-1920s section's text is, for me, hidden behind the left-hand Mount Royal image.

• Image placement is at odds with MOS in a few places; I somehow didn't pick up on this during my first read. First, it's a no-no to place an image on the left side immediately after a section header (because it disassociates the text from the section header). Secondly, sandwiching text between images isn't advised (and is probably the reason this particular image is overlapping text). Basically, try to start a section with a right image, then stagger the next one left, etc.

• "The B&O responded by introducing diesel locomotives, air conditioning, and streamlining" - streamlining should be linked somewhere
• "the first nonarticulated road diesel" - the what?
• The last image, Mt. Royal Station in 2007, is really not a great shot especially at thumbnail size; the perspective is really confused by the stairs and lights on the right side, and overall it's kind of distracting.

• The jury is out on this one. It might be less jarring if the 1961 picture was placed near it for comparison.

• "pulled by new EA diesel locomotives" - EA?
• "Although all of B&O's Washington–Jersey City passenger trains had been fully dieselized by September 28, 1947, no new equipment was introduced on the Royal Blue in the postwar period." - I don't understand the 'although' here; it seems that if they'd been dieselized by war's end, further new equipment would indeed be less necessary.

I didn't quite make it through the full article on this pass; when you're ready to address my comments above, let me know and I'll revisit. Thanks for an interesting article (and a train article feels particularly apropos as I just finished reading Anna Karenina, too!). Maralia (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply: I've made several edits to address all of these issues, except for the 2007 Mt. Royal Station image which I feel is interesting because it relates the historic rail station to the present day appearance. However, it can certainly be deleted if you think it's too much of a distraction.JGHowes ^talk - 02:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

More: I've replaced the 2007 Mount Royal Station image with a cropped version. If still not suitable, then I'll remove it JGHowes ^talk - 05:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've copyedited the latter part of the article; crossed out addressed concerns above; left comments about a few lingering issues; and added a couple new issues. As to the big issue of what exactly the article is about: unless I'm really missing something, this article is about the Royal Blue Line. While it also covers the flagship train named Royal Blue, the article is truly about the line, yes? If so, the article should be moved over the redirect at Royal Blue Line, it should be categorized in Category:Baltimore and Ohio Railroad lines, and the very beginning of the lead should focus on the line, not the eponymous train.

In RE your note at my talk page - THS must be interesting! For the record, I'm a ships girl, though :) Maralia (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Many thanks. You'll note I hastily corrected my gaffe on your Talk page :o) More edits have now been made to address these points. I've also reworded the Lead to clarify that the Royal Blue train is the subject of the article, and the B&O just used the term Royal Blue Line eponymously only until 1917, dropping that term for its New York service thereafter. Only the Royal Blue train survived in a 1935-1958 reincarnation. (added): If further rewording is needed to clarify that aspect, your suggestions would be most welcome. JGHowes ^talk - 12:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I had to think over the train vs line thing. (It may be straightforward to train aficionados, but it's Greek to me. Actually, worse; I know some Greek.) I went to WP:TRAINS looking for guidance. I think the latest lead rewording is working for me now, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style#Articles about named passenger train services style guide seems to indicate a preference for the name Royal Blue (passenger train).

The rest of my concerns above have largely been addressed, so I've dropped a collapsible box around them. Remaining:

• The 1961 station image sandwiches text between it and an image on the left. I just don't think there's a compelling reason for the 1961 image to be in the 1918-1920s section.
• A few other images seem to be 'out of order'. Why not put the 1937 image in the 1930s section, and put the 'final run' image in the '1950s and the end' section?
• In your latest round of edits, you replaced dashes in some hyphenated words (mid-1930s, non-articulated, 8-car) with endashes; why?

The crop of the current station image is a big improvement. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Support My concerns have been addressed. Note that I tweaked the navigational footer template for sentence case in the header, and for italics on train names. Well done! Maralia (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Sources themselves look good, but they need page numbers for the citations, so that folks are able to verify the information easily. Currently, all the references lack page numbers. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice article. Two suggestions, move the free images to commons and add the page numbers if at all possible to the refs. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, concerns addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Comments
  • "It was also the eponymous name used by the B&O between 1890 and 1917 for its improved passenger service between New York and Washington launched in the 1890s..." A bit awkward.. how about: B&O also used its name between 1890 and 1917 for its improved passenger service between New York and Washington...
  • "Beginning in 1917, former Royal Blue Line trains were renamed: the Royal Limited inaugurated..." Is there a comma missing after "the Royal Limited" or am I misunderstanding the sentence?
  • "Diesel-powered" should be with a hyphen, not an en dash. There are more of these throughout.. "non–articulated", "'Martha Washington'–series", "8–car".
  • I think the use of the term "Pennsy" is too informal, especially when it only pops up once in the whole article.
  • In the Scheduling and equipment section, "1890s—1910s" should have an en dash, not an em dash.
  • For the time table, rather than having the footnote preceding it, put the source in the table as a footer row. See how this is done in Saffron. --Laser brain (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply by nom: All of the above comments have been addressed, except for: (1) one citation still needs page numbers; and (2) move of free images to Commons. I'll attend to those today. These suggestions are greatly appreciated. JGHowes ^talk - 21:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: Please see WP:NBSP and the sample edit I left, attention needed throughout. Please see WP:MOS#Ellipses, attention to spaces needed throughout. Please see WP:FN, ibid and op cit are not used on Wiki; pls adjust. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe these have all now been fixed. JGHowes ^talk - 23:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.