Talk:Hi-Level

Corridor Capital

Corridor Capital owns 50 of the Hi-Levels and yes, Corridor Capital is in line to do something with the Hoosier State. It's not clear to me whether they're going to operate it or consult, nor whether the Hi-Levels would be employed. I'm hearing all kinds of things and there hasn't been much news coverage yet. At the very least the Hi-Levels would have to be made ADA-compatible and it's not clear from Corridor Capital's website whether that's been done yet. Mackensen (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 333-blue (talk · contribs) 08:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

To be netural

Not netural enough, but at least not an advertisement.

Grammar

Some sentences may not be correct, see below for more details.

The current status

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article has some grammar and spelling errors to fix, and the design section is too long (too focus), try to focus on other sections.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

   Example:

By the 1960s the Santa Fe encountered...

This is the correct sentence:

By the 1960s, the Santa Fe encountered...

1. B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   Actually, more will be better.

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   This article is not netural enough, though.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

@333-blue: Could you please expand on the neutrality problems you found in the article, giving specific examples? I'm also unclear on the problem with the Design section; this being an article on a new type of railcar, the design section can't help but go into detail. I don't see this as a MOS problem, but I'm open to being convinced. Mackensen (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It should be neturaller, as is example:

These constituted five equipment sets, sufficient for daily service on the El Capitan beginning on July 8, 1956.[8][13] A standard consist for the new train comprised two step-down coaches, five standard coaches, a lounge and a dining car. The Hi-Level cars continued in service after the Santa Fe combined the El Capitan and Super Chief in 1958.[14] The Santa Fe also converted six single-level baggage cars to baggage-dormitories (3477–3482) with a spoiler at one end to create a visual transition.

333-blue 13:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This is an objective statement of facts. There's no value judgement nor opinion in there. Mackensen (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it starts from here, probably:

The Santa Fe also converted six single-level baggage cars to baggage-dormitories (3477–3482) with a spoiler at one end to create a visual transition.

Looks like an advertisement. 333-blue 23:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how that could be understood as an advertisement. The purpose of the text, in the absence of a free image, is to describe (briefly) the appearance of the cars which supplemented the Hi-Levels in regular service. Mackensen (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Mackensen: the words below like an ad:

...to baggage-dormitories (3477–3482) with a spoiler at one end to create a visual transition.

333-blue 08:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You think "spoiler at one end to create a visual transition" is an ad? Strange thing for the ATSF (long gone) to advertise. Here's an unfree image depicting the baggage car: [1]. There's a spoiler at one end. It creates a visual transition between single-level and Hi-Level equipment. In my opinion the phrasing is neutral; I would welcome any suggestion on how to write it more neutrally. Mackensen (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This is my suggestion, add some netural words, like "quite" instead of "very", others are mostly still OK. 333-blue 13:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as neither word is present in the sentence in question, I can't act on your advice. For all that, "very" doesn't appear in the article at all. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, so then, that won't be a big problem:

spoiler at one end to create a quite visual transition

Some words about passengers can add the word named "quite" to make it neturaller. 333-blue 13:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That is nonsensical and bad English. In fact, it's less neutral in that it contains a supposed value judgement not found in the source. Mackensen (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, if you think so, you may do that, but there are some spelling errors, though. 333-blue 23:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@333-blue: I'm sorry, but you're the reviewer. It's your responsibility to call out specific problems with the article and suggest improvements. You say it has neutrality problems, but don't explain what they are, then you give one which is an objective statement of facts and suggest an ungrammatical alternative. You now say there are misspellings (I find none), but again don't say what they are. You say the design section is too long, but you haven't expanded on that idea, such as why that would be a MOS:LAYOUT issue. Regarding references, you passed it while saying that "Actually, more will be better." What does that mean? This article lists a newspaper article, three journal articles, and eight books. There are twenty-one footnotes. Every assertion is cited. If there's an issue you should say what it is so that I can improve the article. Mackensen (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Like the "background" section, there is only one source there. Remember to add more. Sorry, I thought there are more spelling mistakes, but they are all fixed now. We're all in Wikipedia, so everybody should respect each other. I looked at the article again, it is netural enough to be a GA. If FA, we can sure that this have to be neturaller. Right now, it' Passed. Congratulations. 333-blue 04:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hi-Level/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Concertmusic (talk · contribs) 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Opening statement

Grabbing this article for a re-review, per the short discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Second opinion for a promoted article?. Hopefully you won't regret asking for a 2nd review! :)

After reading it through several times (and I always read it more than once before I ever agree to do a GA review), this article appears to be in very good shape for GA, especially in the light that this is a 2nd review. It's an informative and enjoyable read, and I learned quite a bit.

As I usually do, I will make detailed comments below, and will explain any high-level GA-specific points in the Assessment section. Also as usual, I will make numerous comments that may improve the article in my opinion, but are not strictly necessary to pass the GA review. Please feel free to take them or leave them. Anything that must be updated to meet the GA criteria will be highlighted as such.

Comments

Generally, I will try to indicate a suggested edit by saying "I would", versus an edit that should or must be made, where I say "please add" or the like.

• General punctuation comment: I would personally add commas in a few places, but won't point out each instance here. If you'd like, I can do that addition myself as part of this review - please advise. Just one example: In this sentence in the Lead section "In 1979, the first Superliners, based on the Hi-Level concept, though built by Pullman-Standard, began entering service.", there should be two commas added, as I have shown by inserting them in the preceding sentence. I would also change the "though" to "although" in that same sentence - "although" simply reads better in that case.
  • Thank you. I've added some while copyediting elsewhere. Please feel free to add others as you see fit. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

• Reference: I am assuming that all of the facts found in the Infobox come from the referenced book by John H. White, which I don't have access to. Please confirm, but if that is not the case, please put separate references on each fact.
  • Yes. The facts in the infobox are either cited to White or found in the main text and cited there. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• CE: Opening sentence: Totally personal preference on my part, but I would have Hi-Level bolded in the opening sentence, and use coaches as the descriptor, as opposed to doing Hi-Levels - just to make that emphasized opening repetition of the subject as clear as possible. In other words, the final result would be: "The Hi-Level coaches are..."
  • My only issue with doing so is that coach has a specific meaning, but the fleet includes other types. I re-worded to achieve a similar effect. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• CE: 3rd sentence - please see above in the general punctuation comment on replacing "though" with "although".

• Addition suggestion: You have this data in the Infobox, but I think it would be interesting to provide the core stats on total made versus total still in service. A sentence like "Of the total of 73 Hi-Lite coaches built, 5 are still in service today", either as a lead-in to the last sentence, or elsewhere in the Lead.
  • It's a good suggestion; I'm thinking on the wording. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Background

• CE: I would add "railway" after "Santa Fe" in the 1st sentence, as that helps to clarify what "Santa Fe" is, even though it's stated in the Lead. I have no issue with doing that just once per paragraph, and leaving it with just "Santa Fe's" in the 2nd sentence. You could go so far as to add "Railway" again in the 3rd sentence, however - alternating the use with and without description. Your choice, or leave it as is.
  • I'm going to push back, because "Santa Fe Railway" is a shorthand I rather dislike and I don't want to suggest it. I think "Santa Fe" is pretty clear. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification request: In the 4th sentence, please clarify what you mean by this statement: "and often operated in multiple sections".
  • This means that the Santa Fe ran multiple iterations of the train on the same day--a first section and a second section. I've expanded the text. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reference: I am assuming that all of the facts found in the Background section come from the referenced journal, which I don't have access to. Please confirm, but if that is not the case, please put separate references on each fact.
  • Yes; the entire paragraph is sourced to the journal. This is out of convenience only; there are other sources which discuss the El Capitan. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Design

• CE: 2nd sentence: Please add "upper" to this sentence fragment: "Seating occupied the entire upper level...".
  • Bah. Done. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reference 3: This is the only real issue I have from a GA criteria perspective: It appears that the Popular Science reference #3 is used for the sentence "A central staircase linked the two levels." In reading that article, it appears to support the previous sentence, but not that particular fact, as a staircase is not mentioned at all. If you are using the reference to get readers to look at the diagram of the coach running across the top of the pages in the magazine, that might be okay, but should be clearly stated in some way. However, if that is the case, the picture in Schafer & Wclsh is quite a bit better in my opinion. Please review and advise thoughts.
  • Heh, I didn't even look for a citation for that (I've been aboard both Hi-Levels and Supeliners and I know that stairs there)! It's mentioned in Flick and Krogan and I've added a cite. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• CE: 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: I would add "orginally", just to clarify that seemingly self-standing sentence - the the next sentence makes better sense: "Budd originally built the Hi-Levels with steam heating."
  • Good catch. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification request: 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: "When Amtrak began converting its inherited fleet to head-end power in 1970s the Santa Fe handled the conversion of the Hi-Levels in its Topeka, Kansas shops." What does the fact that Amtrak is converting have to do with Santa Fe doing so - how do the two entities, or efforts, relate to each other? If you clarify here, you won't have to do it again down below in History, as the transition from Santa Fe to Amtrak is not clear there either. Alternatively, clarify in History, and you should be okay to leave this sentence without change.
  • Clarified below that Amtrak took over the Santa Fe's trains and acquired the Hi-Levels. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Coaches

• Clarification request: In the 1st sentence, you differentiate between a capacity for either 68 and 72 passengers, You then explain that the 68-passenger variety has "step down" stairs - but it is not clear how the 72-passenger variety differs to increase the number to 72.
  • The stairs take up space which could be used for seating. Clarified. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Addition suggestion: To further clarify the total number of cars built, I would add something like "The 61 coaches built could carry..." in the opening sentence, and then also add the count for the lounges and dining cars in their respective sections at the start of each opening sentence. That little factoid will really reinforce clarity on the numbers of cars in question.
  • Good suggestion; done. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Santa Fe

• CE: In the 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, please wikilink consist.
  • Done. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• CE: Please change "not" to "standard" in the following sentence to make that description consistent: "To augment capacity, the Santa Fe ordered an additional 24 coaches in 1963–1964; 12 step-down (538–549) and 12 not (725–736)."
  • Done. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Amtrak

• See last comment above under "Design".
  • Addressed above. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• CE: 2nd sentence: Please add "the": "Amtrak used the Hi-Levels as the basis for the design of the Superliners it ordered from Pullman-Standard, which began arriving in 1978."
  • Done. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• CE: 3rd sentence: Please add "of": "In the 1980s Amtrak rebuilt many of the coaches as dormitory-coaches, with half of the car given over to crew space."
  • Done. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Addition suggestion: At the end of the final sentence, you could add a closing comment, something like ", and which are the last five Hi-Level cars in use today."
  • Done. Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary

Outside of the bolded Reference 3 item above, there is nothing standing in the way of passing this GA review. I will hold off on taking that step until you have had a chance to review and comment, but I will congratulate you on a really good article now! Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Concertmusic, you have made a number of clarification requests that seem to be appropriate. Given this, I would have to say that until they are addressed, the "clear and concise" criterion is not met. Even if they are minor, they are nonetheless things that ought to be fixed prior to a successful conclusion to the review. The same would be true of typos or other minor grammatical flubs: until they are fixed, the article should not be promoted. I am very glad that this article has had a full review—thank you for being willing to take it on—and look forward to seeing it pass once these issues have been taken care of. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You make a valid point, and I hope I've addressed these concerns. I very much appreciate the extended review. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Mackensen, it's an interesting article, and I'm sorry you had that initial problematic review. I'd like to make one more suggestion: although under History, in the Santa Fe section's middle paragraph, you've wikilinked the term "consist", I'd like to suggest that you replace it with a more general wording. Since "consist" is also a regular word that almost makes sense in this context, it reads more like the wording is in error than that a technical term is being employed. (Also, the wikilinked page requires you to scroll down to find the term, which is not very friendly.) Since I know what "consist" means in English, I ran right past the wikilink and into trouble, which makes the passage less clear than it ought to be. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Good suggestion; I've rewritten the passage. Mackensen (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Mackensen, BlueMoonset: I appreciate the very quick response and feedback. The article is in great shape, and deserves its status as a Good Article. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   The references used appear to be excellent; the few I able to check and read were thorough and complete, and correctly used. Reference #3 has an open question, as seen above. This has been fixed.

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

   I see no issues with the section "Design", or any other section, from a Focus perspective.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is no neutrality issue whatsoever, as the article does not make any claims that are not supported, and states facts, not opinions. I frankly do not understand the neutrality comments of the GA1 reviewer.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Recent edits

@Daybeers:: I reverted your most recent edit:

• Citations don't belong in the lead for a good article that's been nominated for featured status; see MOS:CITELEAD.
• You removed the existing citation for the planned retirement, leaving an uncited fact in the last paragraph.
• The link to the Pullman-Standard redirect is deliberate; some day someone will write up the separate history of that company and it'll be easier to clean up the links.

--Mackensen (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Totally fair points. I think I was looking for a citation that didn't require a subscription and/or wasn't archived, but I must've forgotten to add it back in when my searching didn't turn up anything. I hope it's okay if I add back the date information for the retirement. –Daybeers (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Car 39971

This edit introduced some specific claims which aren't verifiable in the existing sources:

1. that the Hi-Level lounges were rebuilt in 1995 (as opposed to the mid-1990s)
2. that the Pacific Parlour Car refurbishment cost $500,000 per car
3. that the unrefurbished lounge was No. 39971
4. that No. 39971 remained in service, was stored, parted out, and made some runs
5. that No. 39971 was sold in 2003 to David Hoffman of Northern Sky Rail Charters

I don't doubt that any of this is true, but we need sources. Claims 1-2 belong the article. I think claims 3-5, if verified, could be stated as "The sixth lounge, No. 39971, was sold to Northern Sky Rail Charters in 2003." Interesting that it didn't wind up with Corridor Capital. Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Mackensen, I apologize for not adding the source. Here is one that is very well respected in the community and can be reached out to for further information: http://pacificparlourcar.com/ The information I added on the Parlour Cars being rebuilt in 1995 and refurbishment at $500,000 a car is from Matt Donnelly. I'd have to find you a better source, but I trust anything he says. As you may know, he's the Brand Communications Specialist at Amtrak and has led other high-profile projects at Amtrak such as the Amtrak exclusive model trains program and the Amtrak Exhibit Train. Another option would be attempting to get in contact with Brian Rosenwald who directed the Pacific Parlour Car project. Let me know what you think. -GenesisFan99, 5/15/18, 21:04 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenesisFan99 (talk • contribs)

The sources have to be verifiable, which typically means they're published somewhere. I don't think we can use http://pacificparlourcar.com, because the text on that site is at least partially copied from our article:

• Report for the Santa Fe section
• Report for the Amtrak section

There's probably unique information from the Taberns but identifying it would be difficult. There's also the threshold question of whether this is a reliable source. There's no absolute bar on using a self-published source but we need to establish that the Taberns are experts in this field. Mackensen (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Ex-Amtrak disposal

Per Trains News Wire and various other sources Amtrak has listed the five ex-parlors for sale. I think we should hold off mentioning this until there's a buyer. Mackensen (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Looks like they've been acquired by the Steam Railroading Institute for excursions: [2] Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit reverted

@https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mackensen&action=view why was my edit reverted? There was no copyright infringement, subscription needed, or opinion stated. The 2 prototype cars did differ in the way stated and, they do still exist. I spoke to a party who belongs to a group attempting to buy said cars and, naming them may be a detriment to their quest. Rrguy (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• The design differences between the prototypes and production models are discussed in the Design section; I didn't think it warranted a mention in the article lede. Regarding disposal, I think it's still a true statement that Corridor Capital owns most of the cars; if there's a newer published source discussing their state then we should incorporate that. Mackensen (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Very nice article

Mackensen, I rarely glance at the main page (because ITN and DYK give me headaches), and when I do, I rarely read the TFA, but this article was an exception and a pleasure. Re this, no need to respond while you are busy with mainpage (it can wait), but my thinking was that it doesn't hurt to clarify that it was "Santa Fe's", as it hinges on how we define long distance, and major ... and that adding that may help avoid similar from someone else. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia: Many thanks, that's most kind of you! I agree, and I think Frailey probably discusses this in Twilight because there's a section on the Kansas City Southern's operations. Something on the order of "...with the exception of ten cars Kansas City Southern ordered in 1965 for something or other, the last major order until Amfleet..." Mackensen (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm sure Frailey would thank you for adding that :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead photo needs color correction

Original

Corrected

Normally I just fix images that are so messed up, e.g from bad scans of old prints or slides, but this one says not to, since it's from the National Archives. I can upload a derived color-adjusted image if editors agree that it's OK to fix this. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• It looks okay to me, in that 1970s way, but I'm interested to see what a color-corrected derivative looks like. Mackensen (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  Here's my quick stab at a correction. That brown sky might seem right for Los Angeles in 1974, but not for Albuquerque (it's a cloudy day, based on the shadows, so not the usual blue either). Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  Fabulous, that's a real improvement! Mackensen (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, looks better as adjusted. Eric ^talk 15:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, much better. Very nice work with the colors and the levels. -- WikiPedant (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)