Talk:GE steam turbine locomotives/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Happy to review. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful article, here are my comments:

Lead and infobox

World War II "power crunch" "power crunch" may sound a bit informal and hazy, at least add a few words on what the term means.
Are all points in the infobox sourced?

Background:

when GE and UP began collaborating Better give the full name of UP when you begin with the main article.
Link turbine.

Design:

Tractive effort can be explained.
Link armature.
Do "lighting" and "heating" need links?
In total, each unit measured 90 feet 10 inches (27.69 m) in length, 10 feet (3.0 m) in width (at the cab), and 15 feet 3⁄4 inch (4.591 m) in height Is this not relevant enough to be mentioned in the first few lines of this section and in the lead?

Operation:

The locomotives were only in operation for six months "only for six months"?

More later... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review, Sainsf! And please forgive me for my tardiness in getting to it. Let me respond to each of your points below:

Lead and infobox

World War II "power crunch" "power crunch" may sound a bit informal and hazy, at least add a few words on what the term means: Question: I know that it is a technical term, but it essentially means lack of enough locomotives to sustain regular operations at a certain time. If you like, I can spell this out in a more general way in this article, or I could add this term to the Glossary of North American railway terms and link to that from this article (so long as I can cite it properly, which may be difficult based on my preliminary search). What do you think?

I think it would be better to add an inline explanation. The brief one you provided here, "lack of enough locomotives to sustain regular operations at a certain time", should look good here. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so: "a lack of sufficient locomotives to sustain regular operations". Please feel free to improve the wording. Michael Barera (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are all points in the infobox sourced?: Question: They should be. I can certainly double check all of them. Is there a particular way that you recommend I cite points in the infobox?

We generally place the citations next to the entry if the values are not mentioned in the main text of the article with sources. Please see if you have any such entries here. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've double checked, and all the substantive points in the infobox are mentioned in the main body of the article with proper sources. The only two exceptions are the very general locale (United States, which is not explicitly mentioned but implicit from all the locations and railroads mentioned being American) and the gauge (standard gauge, which is the expectation in American usage unless otherwise specified as narrow or broad gauge: no mention of other gauge is made, and indeed the entire UP system is standard gauge). Hopefully these two very broad exceptions can be made: other than that, everything is well cited in the article's prose. Michael Barera (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

when GE and UP began collaborating Better give the full name of UP when you begin with the main article: Y Done.
Link turbine: Y Steam turbine was already linked and I added a link to steam turbine locomotive in this section (one had already existed in the lede); I think both of these are more relevant to this article than the less specific turbine article.

Design:

Tractive effort can be explained: Y Done. I've used the article "Tractive effort" as a starting point. Feel free to modify and improve it as you see fit.
Link armature: Y Done.
Do "lighting" and "heating" need links?: Y No. I've removed them.
In total, each unit measured 90 feet 10 inches (27.69 m) in length, 10 feet (3.0 m) in width (at the cab), and 15 feet 3⁄4 inch (4.591 m) in height Is this not relevant enough to be mentioned in the first few lines of this section and in the lead?: Y It probably is. I've moved the design/appearance/measurements paragraph up to the top of the "Design" section, and included the length measurement (the most important, in my opinion) in the lede. What do you think?

Yes, that looks good. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operation:

The locomotives were only in operation for six months "only for six months"?": Question: According to the Schramm book, this is a true statement. The locomotives served with the Union Pacific for no more than three months (April-June 1939), were tested by the New York Central in 1941 (presumably very briefly), and then were operated by the Great Northern in 1943 during the aforementioned "power crunch", so it seems entirely plausible to me that Schramm's statement is true. It is notable because it is an exceptionally short period of service for a locomotive, especially one that took over two years to design and develop.

I am afraid you did not get me. I meant to say can we write it as "in operation only for six months", unless it hanges the meaning? The present wording looked a bit clumsy to me. (Thanks for the explanation, though, I love learning stuff!) Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for misunderstanding. I have changed the wording to "in operation only for six months", per your suggestion. Michael Barera (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what you think of my edits and my questions as well as any further suggestions for improvement that you have. Thanks again for reviewing this article; it means a tremendous deal to me.! Michael Barera (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's encouraging! Moving on,

Operation:

Has Omaha been linked anywhere? It would be good.

Yes it has: when it is first introduced, it is linked (and written) as "Omaha, Nebraska". Michael Barera (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have we introduced Solomon? We should add a word or two on who the people, whose views are are citing, are.

He's an author (of railroad-related books), as noted on the back cover of the 2014 book I cite in that same sentence in which I mention him (I've added a separate "back cover" reference for his status as an author). Does "rail transport author" (what I've just added) sound alright to you, or is there other wording you'd prefer? Michael Barera (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy:

Have we introduced Schramm?

He's a history professor and author, again per the back cover of his book. I've noted (and cited) him as such. Michael Barera (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should be all. These addressed, I would be happy to promote this. Cheers, Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Sainsf! I do believe that I have now addressed all of your concerns, and I await your final decision. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look good to me. No reason this fine article should have wait any longer. I will go ahead and promote this. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]