Talk:EMD AEM-7/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: RickyCourtney (talk · contribs) 02:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article shortly. --RickyCourtney (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There were a couple of very minor grammar issues that I went ahead and fixed. The article seems to gloss over the importance of the locomotive in Amtrak's history. The article certainly goes into the details of why this was such an important locomotive for the railroad, but I feel this needs to be better expressed in the article's introduction. Towards the end of the design section is this sentence "...(HEP) for passenger comfort." Please briefly expand on what HEP for a non-technical reader. The last paragraph about the end of the locomotive's career has become a bit unwieldy. It seems many of these changes happened after the nomination for good article status. Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article is well referenced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Nearly all citations are from published sources or government documents. When press releases are used, they are non-contentious.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Ran the article through the copyvio detector and no red flags were detected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The picture of the ACS-64 seems out of place as this page is on the AEM-7. Please replace with an image more relevant to the topic. Perhaps use an image of an AEM-7 from an operator other than Amtrak. The image in the infobox is fantastic. Done
	7. Overall assessment.	Other than the above-listed concerns, this is a very good article on a locomotive that is very important in Amtrak's history.

Responses:

I added some language about the AEM-7s importance to Amtrak.
Swapped in a MARC image for the ACS-64.
Added a sentence to make it clear in context what HEP does.
Broke up the last paragraph for readability.

-- Mackensen (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer response:

With those changes made, the article passes. Congratulations to all editors involved.

--RickyCourtney (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]