Talk:State-of-the-Art Car

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:State-of-the-Art Car/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 12:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comment

• The article mainly talks about the history. Maybe add another section "Today" and describe the current situation.
  • I've added a few words to indicate that it's been at the same location since 1989.
• Or make a separate section for specifications.
  • I've separated design/development and testing into two top=level sections, and added a bit more about the specifications. How does that look?
• Also move the citation from lead WP:CITELEAD.
  • CITELEAD allows citations in the lede if needed. In this case, it was added because an editor was arguing about the correct capitalization of the name.
    • If not arguing anymore (I don't find any), I will prefer removing that. Maybe add it here "1971 to manage the State-of-the-Art Car (SOAC) project."  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  08:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
      •  Done
• Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, New York City, and Philadelphia - wikilink them.
  •  Done
• Maybe add a note for Lo- and Hi-density, why they are Lo and Hi instead of Low and High. Its something new for first time readers like me.
  • I don't have an explanation for that, other than "the 70s were a weird time"...
• "(The other two operating..." the bracket starts but doesnt end.
  •  Done
• "1676mm broad gauge" use {{Track gauge}} template for things like this.
  •  Done
• "small loading gauge" also add the dimensions. Pi.1415926535
  •  Done

 Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I believe I've addressed all so far. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• One more thing. Describe the mixed reactions of operating agencies, like how they were opposite to people's reactions as they dropped the project.
  • I've added what I can; the source doesn't say much.
• Also add the scrapping year in infobox. Other than these, I dont find any other issues.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  08:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • None were scrapped. I've added the number preserved.
    • Yeah, preserved...

Congrats, passed.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

State-of-the-Art Cars displayed at Seashore Trolley Museum

• ... that the State-of-the-Art Car (pictured) was designed to run on portions of five different subway systems? Source: "Detail Specification for State-of-the-Art Car", page 1-1
  • ALT1:... that the State-of-the-Art Car (pictured) and its predecessor R44 were the last rolling stock produced by the St. Louis Car Company? Source: Young, Andrew D.; Provenzo, Eugene F. Jr. (1978). The History of the St. Louis Car Company, "Quality Shops". Howell-North Books. p. 267

• Reviewed: Odyssey

Improved to Good Article status by Pi.1415926535 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC).

• Article is long enough and promotion to GA was very recent so it is new enough. It is well referenced, neutrally written, and plagiarism free. I prefer the first hook, being short and interesting. It is inline sourced, but the exact source is a bit unclear. At what page of this long document is it written that the design was for running on five different subway systems? The second hook is also OK, inline sourced, and source is accepted AGF. The image is free, used in the article and easily discernible at 100px. I added (pictured) to both hooks. QPQ Done. I am leaving this as DTK? only so the exact page can be added for the first hook, otherwise it is ready to go. --Muhandes (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Pi.1415926535: According to this, the vehicles were "intended for demonstration on selected portions of the following systems". Wouldn't that be more accurate? In fact, Isn't this what the article says, that they were somewhat restricted? --Muhandes (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Muhandes: You're correct - I've updated ALT0. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• for the ALT0, for ALT1, good to go. --Muhandes (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead image caption

I'm amused at the semantic justification of this revert: [1] in which it's necessary to specify that the SOTA cars at the Seashore museum are on display in the caption. I suppose that I asked for it by asking "why else would they be at a museum" when I removed that part as unnecessary. But does it matter whether they are displayed, or in storage, or visiting for the weekend, or being used to transport people from the cafe to the parking lot? (I haven't been to Seashore since I was a kid, I can't recall what the amenities are like.) But let's say that it matters in what context the cars are at the museum.

In the spirit of WP:BRD I'm bringing it here for discussion. We have a photo of the cars. On a dead-ended track. With what looks like, I don't know, display signage of some sort next to them. The lead paragraph says, and I quote: "Since 1989, the two cars have been on display at the Seashore Trolley Museum in Kennebunkport, Maine." A reasonable reader can conclude that these cars are on display, and in the additional spirit of MOS:CAPSUCCINCT (not to mention WP:THANKYOUCAPTIONOBVIOUS) I move that this is superfluous and provides no additional value. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)