Talk:Chennai Mass Rapid Transit System/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 04:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 19:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

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.	Prose is clear.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead, layout, and wording are good.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are listed.
	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).	All sources are reliable. Primary sources are used a lot, but only for relevant information.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article accurately incorporates information from sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No text is copied. Previous issues with close paraphrasing have been corrected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Contains what readers would expect to see about a transit system.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article remains on topic about the subject.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article addresses criticism but does not place undue weight.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
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.	Images are free.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Contains photos of the system, a transit map, and a chart that provides information.
	7. Overall assessment.

Quickfail criteria

1. Y
2. Y Earwig score is 7.4%.
3. Y No cleanup tags.
4. Y Article is stable.
5. Y The previous GA nom failed due to issues with use of sources. At a glance, it appears that these issues have been addressed.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead section

Comments by — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs)19:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

My corresponding reverts in green. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Body does not mention the date of July 1971. The lead was not updated to reflect the edits made to the body. It is corrected now. Y
• Body does not mention the height of 14 meters. Removed Y
• "Chennai beach" should be capitalized. This occurs a few times in the article. Y
• Probably don't need to repeat the phrase "north–southeastern rail corridor". Y
• Maybe wikilink at-grade crossing. Y
• Saying "0.1 million" feels like worse phrasing than "100,000". Y
• Infobox should probably list daily ridership rather than annual, and also say the date for the statistic. Y
• Infobox lists the opening date as 1 November, probably a typo for 16 November. Y

History

• First sentence of "Background" is a bit complicated. I'd suggest making it two sentences and rephrasing a bit. Y
• I've done some minor copyediting of the whole article, to improve conciseness and clarity. Have made some changes where wikilinks were affected.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Future plan

• I think the "Future plan" section should be a sub-section of "History", since most of the events have happened already. Agree. Have rearranged the sections. Y
• It's not clear to me what "vacated a stay on the same" means, but maybe this is a legal term I'm unfamiliar with. It is a legal parlance. It simply means that an earlier hold order was rescinded. Have done slight modification to it. Y
• You mention that the land for Puzhuthivakkam station was not acquired by 2013. This is fine, but are there any sources that say when the land was acquired? Could not find it specifically. But have added a line on the status of construction over the years, which covers the same. Y

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Infrastructure

• The route taken by the MRTS line has been criticised By whom? reworded Y
• Is the sentence about the decline of the canal necessary? The sources cited don't mention the MRTS. I believe it is required for context and continuity. It explains as to why the pillars were placed in the canal as it was not a navigable waterway then. Have tweaked it for continuity. Y
  • I'm concerned that this is original synthesis. You say that the pillars were built despite the plans to restore the canal, so you would need a source that says there is a connection between the two. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Magentic Manifestations: The article now meets all the GA criteria, but in this case, I'll be strict about the "issues noted in a previous GA review that still have not been adequately addressed" rule. If there's a possibility of a copyright violation, I want you to address it even if it isn't part of the article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• In February 2009, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) announced plans I don't think the announcement itself is notable, right? Combined it into a single sentence. Y

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Operations

• The current operational route length The term "current" is a MOS:WTW. I think it'd be fine to not specify the time, since the rest of the article is clear what the timeline is. Y
• I don't think you should say "As per the schedule release by Indian Railways", since we can assume this is a fact that doesn't need attribution. Y
• I think the "Timing" section contains a bit too much info. If we don't have secondary sources about timing, it's not really relevant. As the section is too short to warrant a separate section, have combined it under the head of operations. I do agree that timings are not necessary as per WP:NTT and have taken those off. Regarding the trains handled, as it is data, it is acceptable usage of primary sources for veracity. Apart from that there are secondary sources backing up other relevant lines. Y
• I'd suggest making the bar chart bigger so that it's legible. Y
• I think you meant to say Chennai Unified Metropolitan Transport Authority instead of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. Y

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin I have addressed the comments. If there are anything further, please do ping me as I might be unavailable for the next few days. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Image status

• @Magentic Manifestations: I just noticed that the source for File:Chennai Rail.png doesn't list it as being under CC BY-SA 4.0. The website said all rights are reserved, at the time the image was uploaded. It looks like the previous GA reviewer had the same comment and you didn't explain where you got the license information from.— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Vigilantcosmicpenguin I didn't find the image being used anywhere in the article. Can you specify where it has been used? Magentic Manifestations (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Let me clarify, I'm just pointing out that an issue in a previous GAN was not adequately addressed. The article is acceptable since the image was removed, but I think I should still address everything the previous reviewer said. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Vigilantcosmicpenguin The image was removed as the previous reviewer had raised the issue. As it is not being used anymore, guess that addresses it. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

As of this revision.
Sources are mostly good. Primary sources are used appropriately. I have noticed a few issues where you don't exactly reflect the source. @Magentic Manifestations:, please address the sources I listed as having issues.

1. Y
2. Y
3. Y
4. Y
5. Y I have mild concerns with close paraphrasing from this source, but not too bad.
6. Y
7. Y Except it doesn't mention the 1983–84 date. As it is already referenced by #5, removing it and adding another source.
8. Y
9. Y
10. NY The source mentions Velachery, not Thirumaliyai. Also, I would suggest specifying the statistic of 9,000 passengers per day, just to be more precise. Have added the relevant source for Thirumayilai. I have modified the second statement to mention only the capacity here. Have taken the patronage to the relevant section.
11. Y
12. Y
13. N Doesn't verify the statement, but the other source already does, so this one isn't necessary. Done.
14. Y
15. N Neither this nor the following source mentions the date of 27 June 2004. The date was incorrect. As mentioned elsewhere in the article as well, the correct date has been updated as per source as 26 January 2004.
16. N see above
17. Y
18. Y
19. Y
20. Y Except these two sources don't exactly say the project wasn't completed as planned—maybe instead add a bit more detail about what the protests were. Have modified it to be more in line with the sources.
21. Y
22. Y Though I don't think this is really worth including if it's only a primary source.
23. Y Except it doesn't mention the Madras High Court. Have added a source which states the original stay order was issued by MHC.
24. Y
25. Y
26. Y
27. Y
28. Y
29. N Does not mention the 4.5 km length. It mentions that a 500m stretch is pending of the 5 km line. As it is not explicit, have modified it accordingly.
30. Y
31. Y
32. Y
33. Y
34. N The sources don't really make this statement. Have made it simpler and gave additional sources
35. N see above
36. Y
37. Y
38. Y Though you're missing a citation for the 14 May 2014 date, which is later than this source Mentioned in the table as well
39. Y
40. Y
41. Y
42. Y
43. Y
44. Y
45. N Doesn't verify the number of stations. It is there as a part of the citation added at the top of the table.
46. Y
47. Y
48. N Doesn't verify that the canal was not used for navigation. Tweaked it.
49. Y
50. Y
51. Y
52. Y
53. N It's fine, though, since the other source verifies this. Moved to appropriate location.
54. Y
55. Y
56. Y But doesn't seem necessary for understanding the article.
57. N Doesn't specifically mention the Chennai MRTS, so I feel like this can be removed from the article. Added a secondary source apart from the primary generalised source.
58. Y
59. Y
60. Y
61. Y
62. Y
63. Y
64. Y
65.   Times of India is only sometimes reliable, and I'd argue "TOP 10 INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT CHENNAI RAILWAY STATION" is not reliable. replaced.
66. Y
67.   A brief, routine press release doesn't seem like a great source for this. The source is used elsewhere as well, where it substantiates the special services being run. Have removed it from this juncture.
68. Y
69. Y
70. Y It doesn't say it abuts the station, but this is just a phrasing error. Corrected
71. N Not sure why it was there in the first place! Removed.
72. Y
73. Y
74. Y
75. N Ehh, this source mentions that the IT corridor is on Mahabalipuram Road, but it doesn't mention the MRTS... I think it'd be best to just not mention Mahabalipuram Road in the article, and just call it the information technology corridor. The previous three sources talk about MRTS aligned along the OMR and the last source talks about the location of IT corridor along the OMR. If I remove the reference to OMR, then there will be nothing linking the statement substantiating the location of MRTS along the IT corridor. Probably will add a word to allude that the IT corridor is one of the things along the road.
76. Y
77. Y Doesn't mention the net loss, but this is okay since it's a simple calculation.
78. Y
79. Y
80. Y
81. Y
82. Y
83. Y
84. N This doesn't say the criticism is from the public, but from a director. Added a separate line with the source.
85. Y
86. Y
87. N It says escalators were not installed, not that they are non-functional. Mentioned as such.
88. N Modified the sentence to state as such.
89. Y
90. Y
91. Y
92. Y
93. Y
94. Y To be precise, it says more than 45 minutes. added
95. Y
96. Y Except it doesn't actually mention holidays. removed
97.   This source doesn't look like an RS to me. removed as it is already backed by other sources.
98. N Not specific enough to back up the claim. removed as it is already backed by other sources.
99. Y
100. Y
101. Y
102. Y
103. N It mentions that a ticket costs ₹10, but it doesn't say this is a cap. reworded it.
104. Y
105. Y
106. Y
107. Y
108. Y I think it'd be better to cite a secondary source for this, but if none exist, it's probably still worth including. added.
109. Y
110. NY Mentions the 2008 stat, but not the 2000 stat. added.
111. Y
112. Y
113. N The source lists three stations. corrected.
114. N The source does not say there have been several schemes; it only mentions one. tweaked the sentence.
115. Y
116. Y
117.   Again, this sort of press release doesn't seem useful, but the secondary source about this statement is good. There are two other sources for the same and the press release confirms special trains being run for cricket matches. So, do not think this is an issue here.
118. Y
119. N This source mentions special buses, not trains. removed it as there are other sources.
120. Y
121. Y
122. Y
123. Y
124. Y
125. Y
126. Y
127. Y

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin Will go through and address the comments. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin, Have addressed the comments. Do let me know in case of further clarifications/discussions on this. Thanks!Magentic Manifestations (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think you have properly addressed my comments about the sources. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.