Talk:Indian locomotive class WDM-2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) 14:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, i will be taking up this review. 1.02 editor (T/C) 14:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Numerous issues in the article, and many areas not in line with the GA criteria. Many sections of the article is unsourced, detailed issues listed below. please use  Done  Partly done or  Not done when replying to my comments. Thanks.

lead

• in the 1962. Done
• the D, M and 2 should not be bolded. Done
• till -> until. Done
• when did they enter service?. Done
  • Also include in infobox Done
• the lead should not have sources, please move ref 1 and 2 into the relevant part of the body. Done
• the lead should also summarise the whole article, a sentence on exports would be good.  Done
• In the infobox it is mentioned that there are 3 preserved trains, but there is mamy more listed in the article. Which is correct?.  Done
• Image caption: express train.  Done

Origin

• Combine this section with the next two (1,2,3,3.1) into 1 section and subsections. Done
• WHOLE SECTION UNSOURCED  Done
• 'required a large build': large train or a large amount of trains? clarify.  Done
• will look through more thoroughly when the paragraph is sourced.

Production History

• First and Third paragraph is unsourced. Done
• with Train(set) #18040 being the first WDM-2 in India  Done
• being #18233 change to 'was'  Done
• 'the WDM-2 has become the most popular locomotive in India' remove  Done
• 'with the very last one being #16887' remove 'very', one change to 'train(set)'  Done
• 'While' change to 'Although' Done
• 'Broad Gauge countries' What is that?  Done
• ' Diesel Loco Modernization Works (DLMW) in Patiala, Punjab.'  Done
• ' DBR's.' remove the apostrophe  Done

Service History

• Section is very poorly written and mostly unsourced.  Done
• Try not to use acronyms so much, especially when the word that it is replacing is not long.  Done
• Please completely rewrite the second and third paragraph, i cant even think of how to salvage it other than WP:TNT. You are referring to places as if they are people and other parts do not make sense at all. and some parts are awkwardly fit in.  Done
• Maintenance: had-> has.  Done
• 'The original WDM-2 bearings were very failure prone and often required minor repairing.' How?  Done
• and was -> which resulted in it being  Done
• spaces after full stops.  Done
• sources needed.  Done

Variants and Sub-classes

• Sources needed  Done
• 'So these locos have dual braking capacity' does dual mean double? also this sentence is written like some sort of guide.  Done
• Locos-> Locomotives.  Done
• Loco pilot-> any normal term for train driver.  Done
• Unnecessary bolding of words here and in the infobox  Done

Shed sections

Remove completely.  Done

Others

• There shouldnt be citations in headings.  Done
  • There is still a citation in the heading of Fleet under Sri Lanka  Done
• There are too many images in the article and some are repeated. Please cut them down.  Done
• Citations should be put after full stops, and put a space after the citation before starting the next sentence.  Done
• Sub calsses, Variants and Export versions can be combined into one section as 'Variants', put the information in the fleet table into prose.  Done

   Not done sections have not been combined  Done Now

• "These Co-Co diesel-electrics were designed for branch-line duties (top speed 105 km/h). They have two 3-axle bogies and are similar to the WDM-2 in appearance. The power-pack is a 12-cylinder ALCO 251B unit." Paraphrase this as it is copied from the source.  Done

Hold

please fix the above issues before i continue. you have 7 days to do so. Putting the article on hold now. 1.02 editor (T/C) 06:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hdmanohar: I have replied some of your points and raised a few new ones. I will be asking for a second opinion on whether some of the information such as the Locomotive numbers and liveries should be included in the article as I feel it violates WP:NOTGUIDE WP:CRUFT and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. 1.02 editor (T/C) 07:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hdmanohar: May i know what do you mean by this statement on User talk:Suvadeep Saha56? "To meet the Good article criteria, the reviewer told me to remove the shed section refer here. After the review is done, I will add the shed section back." If the changes that are made during a GA review are reverted after passing, then what is the point of the review even? 1.02 editor (T/C) 01:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@1.02 editor: Sorry, the shed holding details are needed in order to know the total no of locomotives still in service. No major changes will be done after GA assessment.Hdmanohar (T/C) 05:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hdmanohar: you do not need that to know the number of locomotives in service. A simple number in the infobox does the job. 1.02 editor (T/C) 06:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@1.02 editor: Ok, Tell me if anything else is wrong. Hdmanohar (T/C) 06:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hdmanohar: Yes, there are still many sections of the article that are unsourced. Every statement that is not common sense to everyone should be sourced. In addition to that the article is still relatively poorly written, and i am questioning whether some sections should be included in the article or not, and have asked for a second opinion on that. Also, i have added a point above that needs to be fixed. 1.02 editor (T/C) 08:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hdmanohar: To avoid dragging this review for too long, Unfortunately i am going to fail this article as it is still quite far from meeting the GA criteria. Large sections of the article are still unsourced and the english in the article needs remarkable improvement. Some recommendations i can make are to -Ask for a peer review -Ask for the Guild of Copy Editors to copy-edit the article In addition to that, another thing is that it contains a lot of cruft, and some parts are written in an unencyclopedic way (like the short description). All in all, even after some improvements have been made the article still cannot pass of as a GA, hence I will be failing the article. Thanks 1.02 editor (T/C) 09:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hdmanohar: ok man I understand the situation you are in. Thank you for your valuable input on this article. Hope to meet you again. Hdmanohar.