# Talk:North Coast Hiawatha

I removed this: "with the last paying passenger, Niel G. "Peter" Peterson who boarded at approximately 6am in Ellensburg, Washington to the King Street Station in downtown Seattle.". I've searched Google News, specifically the Ellensburg Daily Record, and I can't find any mention of it. I'd love to include a detail like that, but we need a reference. Mackensen (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:North Coast Hiawatha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bhtpbank (talk · contribs) 13:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
User:Bhtpbank - I find the repeated use of North Coast Hiawatha rather distracting.  I don't quite understand what the track gauge has to do with a train service either.  There is a broken link in the info box.  Needs a little more tidying before I would support a move to GA. Bhtpbank (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that 39 uses of the proper name is excessive (honestly, I'd never paid much attention). I'll attend to that. If you're referring to the Mainstreeter, the link is red, not broken, and we'll likely have an article on it soon (between the next month and the next year, given current trends). I don't see much value in removing it, though if GA standards require it then that's a different matter. It's also true that track gauge is really a matter for a line and not a service; I'm not quite sure why {{Infobox rail service}} permits it. I'll start a parallel discussion there and remove it from this article. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
oh look a article for Mainstreeter, instead of complaining about the article not existing, why not just create the stub? Howaboutudance (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't look like much of an article ... in fact it looks more like one that's should be recommended for deletion (and maybe salted)).Bhtpbank (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
In general intercity trains of several decades standing are presumptively notable; it's hard to see why that would be worth a salting. Anyway, I think we can proceed with the review, yes? Mackensen (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
User:Bhtpbank - Given below are some comments. 

Was it really a streamlined train?
Service created at the behest of Congress - Are you sure? Main text states that it was a partial reaction.
how can an uncertain existence be enjoyable?
The Mainstreeter is mentioned in the summary, but there is nothing about it in the main text of the article. Is it relevant?
Abbrevation NP's used before being defined
Infobox states first service date as being June 5, 1971, but the main text states that it did not run under this name until Nov 14, 1971.
It is unclear as to what the "joint operation" was that ended on June 11, 1973. Also, there is no explanation of what happened to the other parts of the joint operation.
The article needs more pictures of the service/train.  The advert picture is for the previous service.
summary states numerous attempts to restore the service, but the text does not really substantiate this claim.
Infobox gives the train numbers of 17/18 but this is not mentioned in the text, nor is it verfied.
In overall terms, I think there is more to be done, but perhaps we could change the status to A or B in the interim. Bhtpbank (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll prepare a response to these various points, but I'm uncertain how they relate to the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, which is the standard by which I expected the article to be judged. Mackensen (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Comments:

Yes, it's probably a streamlined train. In the vernacular of American railroading in the 1950s this meant trains with streamlined lightweight equipment, which is what the North Coast Hiawatha used. That being said the term has fallen into disuse under Amtrak; the North Coast Hiawatha represents a transitional service.
The North Coast Hiawatha was not part of Amtrak's initial route structure. It was added after members of Congress reacted angrily to the loss of all service on the ex-Northern Pacific. It is reasonable to state that it was created in response to Congressional pressure. Absent that pressure said service wouldn't have existed. There were several similar instances in the early 1970s.
"Enjoyed an uncertain existence" is an idiom whose meaning is I think contextually obvious.
Yes, the Mainstreeter is relevant. This train replaced it.
Added NP abbreviation.
Amtrak did not formally assign new names to trains until the issuance of the November 14, 1971 timetable. Nevertheless this is the same service.
The joint operation is described in the preceding paragraph; it was with the Empire Builder. Absent further discussion it's pretty clear I think that the train continued operating.
There aren't more freely-licensed pictures available. It was difficult finding the ones used. I don't see how it's relevant to the article's status.
There were several abortive attempts to restore service in the early 1980s. It remains an active topic of discussion. I will summarize these efforts later today and soften the lede. Edit: I have updated this. With three attempts since I think the lede is justified.
Train numbers are visible in the timetable linked at the bottom. Plain, uncontroversial facts do not in general need a citation.
--Mackensen (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Bhtpbank - Okay, here is my review, but you should solicit others).
Well written - Up to a point, but it does have some idioms that should be removed (see my comments above).  I also found it hard to follow in some places (see my comments above). The leader contains information that is not referred to in the main article (Mainstreeter), therefore I do not find it to be a true summary of the article.
Verifiable - No issues.
Broad in its coverage - The article does not cover an item that is referred to in the leader (Mainstreeter), and so I think this requires correction.
Neutral - No issues
Stable - No issues. There appears to be some conflict going on ... --Bhtpbank (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Illustrated - Not really, but this is not a key criteria.
As you should know well, you do not have to take my review as being the definitive review ... you need others to read it as well. Bhtpbank (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
A single edit isn't really a conflict; I don't believe Howaboutudance objected to the substance of an edit so much as a single word. Mackensen (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The article has remained stable; is there any further feedback? Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the article is stable. As before, I recommend you engage others before any decision is made to change the status to GA. - Bhtpbank (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Bhtpbank, would it be possible for you to specify what remaining issues you'd like a second opinion on? I'd be happy to give one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I sensed a degree of relcutance from the editor that nominated this article for GA status, to take the comments I gave with any seriousness.  Therefore I felt that it was not appropriate for me to make a determination either way.  Hence, I felt that the view of other editors should be sought.  So I would review the article with oyu own eyes and see what you make of it.  Perhaps you will get a better vibe form the editor that nominated it, because all I felt was that I was being used as a "rubber stamp" if you know what I mean. Bhtpbank (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm baffled by your remark. Mackensen (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Sorry to hear that. It's a shame, though, to have a second reviewer start from scratch here with the queue as long as it is. If you feel that there are issues here that still need to be addressed, I'd suggest listing the specific remaining action points/concerns and then failing the nomination. The nominator can then seek a second opinion/reviewer anyway, who will have a clearer record of your concerns. If you don't have any tangible concerns remaining, I'd suggest passing, since it looks like several rounds of discussion/revision have already taken place. But if you aren't sure if the nomination meets the GA criteria, we just withdraw your review and return this one to the queue with the same timestamp.
Thanks to you both for your work on this one so far! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the good advice. I withdraw my review. Bhtpbank (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:North Coast Hiawatha/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 17:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mackensen, I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks again for your work on it, Khazar2 (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, on my first pass, this looks good. It appears to cover the main aspects, the prose is fine, and it's generally well-sourced.
The only source issue I see right off is with the four pictures used as sources. This seems to me to be moving into original research. I trust you that you can correctly identify the types of cars in the pictures, but these pictures aren't enough for a generalization like "In the early 1970s a typical train might feature as many as four dome cars pulled by ex-Milwaukee Road EMD E9s" or "The train was one of many routes to receive the new EMD SDP40F, which worked the route between 1974–1977, although older EMD E8 and EMD E9s continued to be used". I also don't know how much editorial oversight a site like RailPictures.Net does to make sure the correct train is being photographed on the correct day.
Do you have sources that discuss the train's consist in prose? I'd suggest all material that relies on photographs should be deleted. 
Now I'll take a look again at the previous, withdrawn review and see if there's anything I agree with that I'm missing so far. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I made one more tweak based on the previous review. By the way, feel free to revert any of the tweaks I've made directly to the article that you might disagree with. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
As it happens Sanders does discuss consist and equipment in sufficient detail, so I've rewritten using him as the reference. I don't think I had access to Sanders when I wrote that originally, and you're absolutely right that we have to do better. Mackensen (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, terrific. That resolves that, then; thanks for the quick response. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


### Checklist