Talk:Train/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Mark83 (talk · contribs) 20:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review in progressMark83 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2022 (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. Some tidyup required:
  1. Slightly pedantic, but steel tracks with steel wheels don’t “allow” low friction, it just is a low friction system. What about Most trains operate on steel tracks with steel wheels, the low friction of which makes them more efficient than other forms of transport.
    I've adopted your suggested wording for this sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  2. There’s a theme of not being exact, e.g. “early 1800s”. Now some such examples are fine, e.g. “Italy… first decades of the 20th century”. But others feel like they could be tightened up on, e.g. in the second half of the 1700s. and during the first decades of the 20th century. I know not all examples will be capable of being narrowed down, but I think a review of these would help.
    I've specified more exact dates for several of these, let me know if you see any other candidates for more specific dates. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  3. Following the development of more flexible cars – I know what we’re trying to say here, but it’s vague.
    Rewritten as "Following the development of cars, trucks, and extensive networks of highways which offered greater mobility, as well as faster airplanes, trains declined in importance and market share, and many rail lines were abandoned." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  4. In medieval times, wagonways were introduced to haul material from mines; from the 1790s, stronger iron rails were introduced. – these aren’t closely linked enough for a semicolon. We’ve skipped a massive part of development and linked them like they are closely related.
    I've reviewed the source for this, and unfortunately it also jumps straight from describing wagonways used in medieval times to the development of iron rails in the 1790s, with nothing else in between. From what I've been able to gather, there was not much development in wagonway technology at all until iron rails were introduced. Canals and horse-drawn carts were the way most cargo was moved. The best I can do is specify that medieval wagonways largely began in the 1500s. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  5. In medieval times are we happy this is specific enough? Link to an article?
    As I said immediately above, the source I'm using here does not specify beyond "medieval times". It concludes the paragraph dedicated to trains before steam by basically saying that before steam locomotives, they were not a primary method of transporting cargo or people. Most use was in and near mines. The articles I could link to here are Wagonway (already linked just before) and Plateway. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My point on this one is to ask the question will the average reader be clear on what medieval times means? A link might be appropriate? Mark83 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually didn't realize the Medieval period was considered to be from the 5th century to the 15th century, a thousand or so years. The idea I had in my head was that it was only a few centuries. With that in mind, I've specified that it started mostly in the 1500s.Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  6. at up to what was at the time a brisk speed of 8 miles per hour sentence a bit clumbsy.
    Removed that part of the sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  7. Other European countries pursued their own designs, distinct from those of both Britain and America. “distinct from those of both Britain and America” is redundant based on the start of the para.
    Wording changed, I've cut the end of this sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  8. trains reached > trains were adopted?
    Changed to "Trains first entered service in..." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  9. Japan which was never colonized, relevance?
    The relevance of this is that trains in that country were not built by colonizing powers (for the purposes of exploiting said colonies), but developed independently (though greatly influenced by European and American train technology) in Japan instead. Open to suggestions on how to convey that point more clearly, or potentially remove it instead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY Understood. Mark83 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. first decade of the 1900s > 1910s
    No, this is referring to between 1900 and 1910. I couldn't just say "the 1900s" since that implies the entire century. Unsure how to improve this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm suggesting replacing "first decade of the 1900s" with "the 1910s", it's less words that mean the same thing. I didn't suggest saying "the 1900s". Mark83 (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "The 1910s" is not correct, because I'm referring to between 1900 and 1910. "The 1910s" means between 1910 and 1920. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cringing at my own stupidity here. Sorry! Mark83 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickYMark83 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. thanks to lower costs, > due to lower costs? (ignore if you disagree).
    Using the term "thanks" appears to be a quirk of my writing style, I remember this being pointed out to me at one of my other GANs earlier this month. I decided to change the wording here as you suggested. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. However, a new type of train service was devised which turned this trend around in many places – “in many places” is too vague. And this is meant to introduce high speed rail? Not clear enough.
    Yeah, that wording isn't great. I've rewritten it now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  13. In the rest of the world, high speed trains did not take off as quickly top vague – where? How “not as quickly”?
    I've essentially decided to cut this down and let the previous sentence speak on its own, just moving from that right into "the first high speed train in the Americas was the Acela". The book I used for much of this section ends at 2000, so I'd need to do some more research to talk more about 21st century high speed rail developments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. While early trains used hand brakes, which are still found on most railroad cars to stop them frommoving when parked, the predominant braking system for trains around the world is air brakes, which can be applied at once to the entire train thanks to air hoses. run on sentence, and “thanks to air hoses” feels informal.
    I've rewritten this now along with a bit more detail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Like all equipment, trains must periodically be maintained. Is this a bit redundant?
    Sentence removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  16. Several types of employees work with trains Same concern.
    I've removed this sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  17. On passenger trains, other crew members work with passengers – passengers don’t work.
    The idea I was trying to convey by "work with" was how conductors and porters and other similar workers do a variety of things to assist passengers, such as helping load and unload luggage, helping passengers alight and exit from trains, maintain passenger accommodations in sleeping cars, serve food in dining cars, etc. Would saying "assist passengers" or a similar wording be better? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "assist passengers" would be clearer? 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    Green tickY Change made. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Around the word > world
    Unsure what you are suggesting here. The sentence currently says "Railfans are found around the world." Are you suggesting I change the way it is written? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the first sentence in the 'gauge' section, "Around the word" Mark83 (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I see it now. Fixed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  19. is the most common gauge worldwide, though both broad-gauge and narrowgauge trains are also in use globally. lose “globally”.
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  20. remove prior to the development of steam locomotives from “before steam” section as it’s redundant based on the title.
    Removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  21. Steam section: First developed in the early 1800s, is already covered? Same with In the mid 20th century, most steam locomotives were replaced by diesel or electric locomotives, which were cheaper, cleaner, and more reliable.? And the same point made in the next section (diesel). #“Far more” more WTW (see below).
    Some redundancy with the history section is necessary here in order for me to cover the differences between steam and diesel. I can trim some things, such as the first sentence under the steam subheader. I can remove that sentence, and instead of directly comparing, simply list the advantages and disadvantages of each method of motive power in their respective subsections. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY Understood.Mark83 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. In “train cars” check punctuation for a prose list.
    I can't find any sort of official guidelines or policies on prose lists. Just the same, I made some edits to the wording and formatting here, hopefully that resolved your concern here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickYI'm sorry, I think I thought this should have been a colon > semicolon list. Reading again it's fine. Mark83 (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. railway field is a bit vague > industry?
    Agree that's not great wording. One of the only sections I didn't take an axe to and rewrite. Just rewrote that sentence. The references in the monorail section may need to be looked at as well, as they predate my rewrite in early November 2021. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. More or less. Just have a review of a few WP:WTW, e.g. “highly Influential”, “extremely” “highly”
Resolved. Mark83 (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. Reference layout is good.
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). Not sure book urls should point to https://www.worldcat.org/? "URL of an online location where the text of the publication named by title can be found". But more helpful than not (and not commercial) pending confirmation. Mark83 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research.
  1. Not exactly OR, but a point of accuracy. In lead: Experimental trains such as maglevs, which use magnetic levitation to float above a guideway, are under development in the 2020s and offer higher speeds than even the fastest conventional trains., but the article states that these were developed in the previous century and gives an example of maglev operational in 1984.
    Maglev as a concept has been used in a few installations, most low speed, such as that 1984 one, which was all of 600 meters in length. Long distance, high speed maglev is still in development, the longest current system is the Shanghai maglev train which is 18 miles long (29 km). The Maglev article covers this more, but while many systems are planned and a few are actively being built, most are simply proposals right now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now specified "high speed maglevs" which hopefully clears the ambiguity. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  2. Again, point of accuracy: In the 21st century, services such as the French TGV and German Intercity Express are competitive with airplanes in travel time over short to medium distances But flights are much cheaper, so high speed trains must have been ‘’even more’’ competitive in the 20th century?
    Well, the extensive high speed networks of countries like Japan, France, and Italy were not as developed back then. Early high-speed trains were not as fast (the 0 Series Shinkansen topped out at 210 km/h (130 mph) as built), and some of the networks hadn't been built yet. This is a whole topic unto itself, but high speed rail outside Japan really took off with faster, lighter, and more comfortable second-generation trains in the 1980s to 1990s, like the SNCF TGV Atlantique and the 300 Series Shinkansen. Even more so around the start of the 21st century with things like the 700 Series Shinkansen and SNCF TGV POS which are even faster and more advanced. The U.K. got started with InterCity 125 in the late 1970s, but that topped out at 125 mph. Many European countries quite simply did not have high speed networks at all until the 1990s. Intercity Express started in 1989, for instance. Spain's network started in 1992, and the U.S. didn't get around to high speed rail until 2000 with the Acela. China started in 2003, with South Korea and Taiwan a few years after that. Turkey's first launched in 2009, Uzbekistan's first in 2011. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY So there may have been examples in the 20th century, but this was embryonic compared to 21st century. Understood Mark83 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fast train travel made possible in days or hours journeys which previously took months. If a journey takes a train days or hours, it wouldn’t take a horse months?
    I found this on history.com: "A mere 83 hours after leaving New York City, the Transcontinental Express train arrives in San Francisco. That any human being could travel across the entire nation in less than four days was inconceivable to previous generations of Americans. During the early 19th century, when Thomas Jefferson first dreamed of an American nation stretching from “sea to shining sea,” it took the president 10 days to travel the 225 miles from Monticello to Philadelphia via carriage. Even with frequent changing of horses, the 100-mile journey from New York to Philadelphia demanded two days hard travel in a light stagecoach. At such speeds, the coasts of the continent-wide American nation were months apart." Later on it also says "By 1869, the first transcontinental line linking the coasts was completed. Suddenly, a journey that had previously taken months using horses could be made in less than a week." [1] This suggests that the wording I have is overall correct. Perhaps I can remove the "hours" part, but I'm trying to take a broad view here, and trips that previously took days by horse only took hours by train. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. I suppose this query came up because in your head you were thinking of intercontinental trips and I was thinking in the hundreds of miles bracket. Maybe just something like "for example, the trip from [east coast location] to [west coast location]? Mark83 (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Towns and cities along railroad lines grew in importance, while those bypassed declined or even became ghost towns. don’t think the reference covers decline/ghost towns?
    Added a citation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  5. Major cities such as Chicago became prominent because they were places where multiple train lines met. – no reference for this? And we can’t self reference, but I had a look and our Chicago article doesn’t back this statement up.
    Cited, but I can't link what I cited here or this stupid table breaks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  6. non-indigenous migrants – is that correct?
    I was a little skeptical of this wording myself, but it was pointed out to me that the way I originally wrote this glossed over the role trains played in the U.S. taking over the land of Native Americans. @MSG17: you may wish to respond here, I see you added this particular sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did add that to at least allude to the role of the railways as part of the colonization and eviction of indigenous people (and also because settling of the western part of the nation by westerners sounded awkward to me). Honestly, I think that instead of just looking at the US and Russia, there might be commons themes of railroads being a major tool of economic exploitation, migration, connection and displacement across the world, both for positive and negative effects and particularly in colonialist/imperialist contexts. But, I couldn't really find any comprehensive material for this at the time. Maybe I should look again? MSG17 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY For commons themes of railroads being a major tool of economic exploitation, migration, connection and displacement across the world, both for positive and negative effects I think for me to push for that is getting us into Featured Article criteria. I just bumped on it, but it's not something I'd fail GA nomination on. Happy to leave this one with you.Mark83 (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Toy train sets are commonly used by children, particularly boys. I’m not ‘woke’, but even I bumped on this. And the reference is Toy trains : [1935-1975]. A lot has changed!
    That's one of the few parts of the article not written by me. User:Sdkb pointed out to me that the cultural impact section was lacking, and made some improvements. I'll freely admit cultural impact is one of the areas of trains where my background knowledge isn't quite as strong. I'll need to look for other sources covering this, it may take a bit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming to it from a sociological angle (my background), my understanding is that, despite a few strides toward degendering, toy trains are still given far more often to boys than girls, and there's presumably a recent reliable source discussing it. That's absolutely not an endorsement of that practice—the fact that toy stores generally still have separate aisles for boys and girls is incredibly problematic, just as it would be if they had a separate aisle for toys for black children. But so long as it remains true, it's a significant piece of information that we should document. Sdkbtalk 20:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But if we're going to document it, we need a reference that isn't ~45 years old? Mark83 (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've dropped in a citation to a very recent (October 2021) book on the sociology of women which covers this in some detail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But the author's commentary is based on studies from the 1970s. Rather than going down a rabbit hole (in terms of your time) why don't we just go for Toy train sets are commonly used by children. and remove the commentary on boys and girls? Mark83 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY That's probably the best solution for now, I can come back to this later on and improve it after doing more research. Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Point of accuracy: Following the war's conclusion in 1945, nations which had suffered extensive damage to their railroad networks took the opportunity provided by Marshall Plan funds and advances in technology to convert their trains to diesel or electric power - but many of the nations with damaged railways were 'behind the Iron Curtain' and they didn't avail of Marshall Plan funds. Reword needed.
    This is true, instead they received funding and technological support from the USSR and Comecon. I've added mention of this to the article now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY
  9. Freight trains are significantly more efficient than trucks, while also emitting far fewer greenhouse gas emissions per ton-mile. source? And WP:WTW, how much "far fewer".
    I believe I said this elsewhere, but I have an exact statistic from [2] of 63 GCO2-EQ/PASSENGER-KM. I need to find the stats for other modes to make a comparison. To quote this source: "On average, rail requires 12 times less energy and emits 7-11 times less GHGs per passenger-km travelled than private vehicles and airplanes, making it the most efficient mode of motorised passenger transport. Aside from shipping, freight rail is the most energy-efficient and least carbon-intensive way to transport goods. The low energy and CO2 intensities of rail transport make promoting rail a promising strategy to diversify energy sources and reduce emissions. However, like all other transport infrastructure, rail investment is expensive. High passenger or freight throughput (i.e. high infrastructure utilisation) is necessary for a rail construction project to pay off, both economically and environmentally. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY Now sourced to the International Energy Agency, with a quote added to make the significance clear. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Checked with Earwig's Copyvio Detector Tool - no concerns. Mark83 (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  1. Is it a bit US-centric? Please give me your general response on this and I can follow up with examples if necessary.
    I've made efforts to avoid being too US-centric, but it is certainly possible more work is needed in achieving this. I live in the U.S. and it is what I am most familiar with, but I've tried to make sure I include a global perspective (one example that was deliberate was including a photo of trains in Zimbabwe, and I tried to maintain a good geographic distribution for photos in the montage in the lead (they include Russia, Germany, Switzerland, India, New Zealand, and the United States). I was hoping that other editors who are familiar with trains in other parts of the world would step up and help me out, but as you can see from the article history it's pretty much just been rewritten by me. Can you point out some specific examples to me? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickYNo, I understand. Mark83 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A subset of high speed trains are higher speed trains, which bridge the gap between conventional and high speed trains, and travel at speeds between the two. the reader could benefit from examples of these?
    Green tickY Examples added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In the United States, railroads on average moved a ton of freight 436 miles (702 km) per gallon of fuel, as of 2008, an efficiency four times greater than that of trucks. Could we find an up-to-date assessment? A lot has changed in 13 years.
    Will see if I can find more recent safety statistics. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about efficiency. Mark83 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are right. My brain meant one thing but said another. I found [3], which quantifies the greenhouse gas intensity of rail per passenger-km as of 2020 as 63 GCO2-EQ/PASSENGER-KM. To quote the source: "Rail is one of the most energy-efficient transport modes, responsible for 9% of global motorised passenger movement and 7% of freight but only 3% of transport energy use.". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Train safety not covered in anything like enough detail. For example more detail on development and use of systems, maybe mention of major accident(s) to give examples of how serious they can be, how such incident(s) have contributed to safety measures. Happy for summary style to mean this is developed as a summary and a "main" link - this is requried either way.
    I did mention the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster in this section, which was a particularly deadly one in recent history (2013). There aren't a ton I can point to in recent decades as train travel is overall very safe. Certainly there are some historic ones that were very serious, an example for you is the Tay Bridge disaster in the U.K. I've made it a point to keep strictly to summary style to keep the overall word count down - I am consciously trying to avoid ending up with an article like Steam locomotive which, at a prose size of 17,847 words, 112,058 characters, is far too long to summarize the key points, in my opinion. In contrast, Train is presently at 4,118 words, 26,287 characters, which leaves us plenty of room to expand. Some things I can touch on more here include automatic train stop, the recent implementation of Positive train control in the U.S., the development of the Railway air brake, and the banning of dangerous practices such as Poling. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I don't find the safety coverage particularly underweighted. The fact that trains are so safe compared to other modes of transport means it doesn't need as much coverage as it would if this were e.g. automobile, and while train crashes do make the news regularly, that's largely just because of the media bias toward exception rather than ongoing events (each train crash is large enough it makes the news, whereas there isn't an article or ITN entry every time the equivalent number of people die in car crashes; coverage also here). As an encyclopedia, we should take a broader view. My concerns about this section are more that it's weighted toward the U.S. and toward recent events. Sdkbtalk 22:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want sensationalist content. I just think the reader does not get a summary of the protection systems that prevent accidents. And there should be {{main}} link to the appropriate article(s). Train protection system maybe? Mark83 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. For the link, though, Train protection system would make more sense if this were Rail transport rather than Train. - Sdkb
    This subsection already links to Automatic train stop and Centralized traffic control, but I can elaborate more on what they do. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added two more sentences on automatic train stop and positive train control. Do you believe that is enough, or what else do you believe I need to expand upon? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickYIs there no article(s) that could be {{main}} linked? But going to close this point now. Plenty of consideration and attention given to this query. Mark83 (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish there was an article like Train safety or Railway safety (latter is a redirect to 2 paragraphs in the rail transport article) I could link to, but none exists as far as I can tell. Maybe I'll make one myself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Again, Not OR, but an issue with one sentence & reference. Trains have long had a major influence on music, art, and literature. - The reference talks about the impact on US culture only. Not only would a different or another referece be good for other parts of the world, but I think maybe another sentence or two on the romanticism of trains in literature and also cinema. I'll see if I can find a reference for this. Mark83 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No concerns on too much detail.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Is the article too pro-railway as the answer to all our problems? Open question, happy to discuss.
But trains are the answer to all our problems! Jokes aside, there has been a fundamental reevaluation of the importance of trains since roughly the 1970s, with the oil embargo causing high fuel prices, and a growing appreciation of issues with pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Many governments actively promote railroads. I mean, there's nothing that would justify a "criticism" section here. The big disadvantages of trains are that they lack the flexibility of trucks/lorries or automobiles, and in most cases are not as fast as aircraft. Do you feel I should touch upon those points more? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong feelings on this, and your commentary makes sense. Maybe something to consider for expansion. Maybe include high price of rail (and trains themselves)? Mark83 (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No concerns.
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. No concerns.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Happy to pass this. Just a few comments for consideration

  1. I think we're bordering on, or slightly over, the line of too many images; the MOS says too many images can be distracting. File:QRNational (Aurizon) WAGR L class LZ3106 and LZ3103 -- Fremantle, February 2015.jpg could go. Doesn;t really convey that much information that the previous freight train picture doesn't deliver the reader? Same for the China high speed rail picture - let's just stick with the Japanese one? After all, this article is about trains, not railways - so who's high speed network was first/biggest etc. isn't that important in this context (i.e. the choice of images).
  2. File:Burlington Northern Sante Fe Willmar Railroad Yard (7600839444).jpg is not a great image. I get why we've included it, but it's not doing a good job of showing various types of railroad cars.
    There's not a ton of photos on Commons that show this idea well, but I've found a few potential alternates: File:Niagara_Falls_Switch_Yard.jpg File:CNRailwayYardHamilton.JPG File:Colton_Yard,_California_(29321100133).jpg File:BNSF_yard_in_Oakland,_April_2018.JPG File:BNSF Railway Classification Yard, South of Galesburg, IL (3).jpg. I particularly like the last one. It's kind of hard to get good photos within railroad yards since they're obviously not open to the public in most cases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on last one. Different angles to be able to see the different cars, and also bigger variety? Mark83 (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. File:Narrow gauge railroad - Geriatriezentrum Lainz 22.jpg I don't know, but I'm guessing narrow guage is quite niche in terms of utilisation/passengers carried. Therefore is this picture not over-promotion of a niche topic?
    I'd say no - a number of countries use narrow or broad gauge networks significantly, including India, Japan, Australia, Brazil, and New Zealand. To have one photo in the body isn't an overrepresentation, I'd say (plus one in the lead, of the New Zealand diesel locomotives). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. File:Shenzhen Guangzhou high speed train new rolling stock China (37116926035).jpg Resolution on this is poor. Wouldn't pass this for a hypothetical FA review.
    Ironically enough, that was added to replace an ever lower quality photo of a train interior in Finland. Thoughts on File:JR Hokkaido night train express"Hamanasu"Unreserved seat.JPG File:Amfleet Interior 2019.jpg File:Inside Via Rail, 2017 (20170814 165715).jpg as potential replacements? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. File:Claude Monet - Arrival of the Normandy Train, Gare Saint-Lazare - Google Art Project.jpg - Consider placement. Would be better further down where cultural impact is mentioned.
  6. Just noticed that this article does have a warning header when editing. This article is at high risk for accruing too many images. Please prioritize recognized high-quality images with a strong connection to the body text, and remove others. Avoid having many similar images and sandwiched images... - worth considering. Mark83 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. A good article. A few points above for potential expansion and if FA status was to be considered. But very solid as a result of a lot of hard work. And a lot of constructive engagement and work on this review is much appreciated also. Mark83 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark83 (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: I have to finish 2b. In the interim could you take a look at 1b please? (Should be a quick one, you might be happy that the sources adequately cover the 'Words to Watch'.) And you'll see I added a commment regarding image overuse. There is a (hidden editing) warning that there may be too many images, which is in line with my thoughts. What are your thoughts on this? Mark83 (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I caught all the WTW, correct me if I'm wrong. I also removed a photo from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have checked since the GA Review started, but you've fixed it an edit I missed. Mark83 (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the images, I think we could still lose one of the two high speed train pics. But not going to let my preferences get in the way of promotion. Mark83 (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Train/GA1&oldid=1136876820"