Talk:Caltrain Modernization Program/GA1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:43, 13 September 2017

Latest revision as of 12:13, 26 February 2023

(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 96:

It has been possible to check all of the refs as they are all online. I have made detailed checks of around one third of them, and in all cases, the text as written was adequately supported by the reference. I have assumed that the same attention to detail has been exercised for the remaining refs.

:'''Done''' for all except for the (now) Ref 95 incorrect link. I couldn't find the correct document, {{re|Mliu92}} do you mind taking a look at it and see what's wrong with the ref? --[[User:Haha169|haha169]] ([[User talk:Haha169|talk]]) 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

::{{ping|Haha169}} Ref 95 was intended to link to Appendix A of Part 211 to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The way that particular template is structured makes it impossible to directly link it, so I modified the template to bounce to 49 CFR 211 directly, and turned Appendix A into a direct link to eCFR. I also added the original policy, as issued in the Federal Register, along with a minor amendment (updating the address) issued in Federal Register. Cheers, [[User:Mliu92|Mliu92]] ([[User talk:Mliu92|talk]]) 14:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

===Images===

Line 107 ⟶ 108:

*''Some of the diesel locomotives will be retained for service south of Tamien and, potentially, on the Dumbarton Rail Corridor.'' The Dumbarton Rail Corridor is mentioned without any context, and is not clearly mentioned in the body of the article. The article mentions that electrification is a prerequisite for expansion across the Dumbarton Rail Bridge, and ref 17, which supports this, makes no reference to diesel or electric trains. This needs to be clarified.

::'''Done''' --[[User:Haha169|haha169]] ([[User talk:Haha169|talk]]) 03:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

:::The sentence as previously written was correct but confusing: diesel locomotives will be retained for use south of Tamien. Diesel locomotives would also be used over Dumbarton Rail Corridor (DRC), as there are currently no plans to expand the electrified corridor over DRC, and electrification is not a prerequisite for service across DRC. The article text stating that electrification was a prerequisite to expanded service across DRC and to Gilroy is inaccurate: in re-reading the source 1998 ''Rapid Rail Study'', it appears that electrification is merely a higher priority than expanding the system. ''RRS'' gives four priorities starting on page 1-14: (1) Rehabilitation (deferred maintenance from SP ownership), (2) Enhancement (completed as Caltrain Express), (3) Electrification (the current article), and (4) Expansion (including DRC and Gilroy). I will rewrite the article text under the subhead '''Early electrification proposals''' to make this clear. Cheers, [[User:Mliu92|Mliu92]] ([[User talk:Mliu92|talk]]) 14:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

===The formal bit===

Line 112 ⟶ 114:

#It is '''reasonably well written'''.

#:a ''(prose)'': {{GAList/check|holdyes}} b ''([[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|MoS]] for [[WP:LEAD|lead]], [[WP:LAYOUT|layout]], [[WP:WTW|word choice]], [[WP:WAF|fiction]], and [[Wikipedia:Embedded list|lists]])'': {{GAList/check|holdyes}}

#::See comments above

#It is '''factually accurate''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]]'''.

Line 127 ⟶ 129:

#::

#It is illustrated by '''[[Wikipedia:Images|images]]''', where possible and appropriate.

#:a ''(images are tagged and non-free images have [[Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Use_rationale|fair use rationales]])'': {{GAList/check|yes}} b ''(appropriate use with [[WP:CAP|suitable captions]])'': {{GAList/check|holdyes}}

#::See comments above

#::

#'''Overall''':

#:''Pass/Fail'': {{GAList/check|holdyes}}

#:: <!-- Template:GAList -->

*I have now completed the review. You seem to be getting on well with resolving the issues. I will put the article on hold. You normally have 7 days to complete the work, but do let me know if you need a little more time, or if there is anything that is not clear. [[User:Bob1960evens|Bob1960evens]] ([[User talk:Bob1960evens|talk]]) 22:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

** Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly review this article's conformity to the GA criteria. I will spend the next few days working to solve your concerns and let you know when I am done or have any concerns! --[[User:Haha169|haha169]] ([[User talk:Haha169|talk]]) 02:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

***{{re|Bob1960evens}}, I believe Mliu and I have taken care of all of your concerns. Thank you again for taking the time to leave a thorough review, and I hope we have fixed all of the issues! --[[User:Haha169|haha169]] ([[User talk:Haha169|talk]]) 23:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

****Sorry for the delay in wrapping this up, but I missed the ping somehow. Anyway, I am pleased to see that all of the issues raised have been addressed, and consequently am awarding the article GA status. Well done on an interesting and informative article. Keep up the good work. [[User:Bob1960evens|Bob1960evens]] ([[User talk:Bob1960evens|talk]]) 21:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)