Wikipedia:Peer review/Turboliner/archive1

Turboliner

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because over the past two years I've put the article through a major revamp. Major changes include the use of reliable sources (instead of forums and such), a clearer split between the two different types of Turboliners, and a more thorough discussion of their use in the Midwest. I'm interested in taking the article to GA status but I believe the article would benefit from a thorough examination by a third party. At least to my mind the history of the Turboliners is complicated and not always well-documented.

Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from EdwardH

• {{rp}} is intended for references which are used many times in an article, instead of those used only once. Use shortened footnotes instead.
• The Background section is unreferenced. The section also doesn't cover their much of their background and focuses more on the scale of their use.
• In the RTG Design subsection, information on maintenance and retirement would be better in the Service subsection.
• WP:Accessibility forbids the use of bold psuedo-headings (as used in the Service subsection). Instead use the === ... === syntax.
• "US$" is unnecessary considering that these trains served only in the US.
• The manual of style forbids the mixing of en-dashes and "between".
• Some of the sources have all-caps titles; normalising the capitalisation makes them easier to read.
• ISBN's are inconsistently formatted.
• "miles per hour" can be shortened to "mph".
• Why where the trains where ordered? What role(s) were they meant to fulfil?
• Perhaps a brief note on their replacements?
• Citation 22 is rather short.

It's a good article and I think you'll be able to get it to good article status. EdwardH (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your input; it's been most helpful. I think I was able to address all of your concerns. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)