Jump to content

Talk:Rapid transit/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

I am reviewing the article (actually I started before adding this page) and when finished reviewing will put the review here. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

#::* The safety and security section has no references. Note 7 refers to "While 2002". Presumably this is a typo for "White 2002"? The caption on image:Taipei MRT Shimen station.jpg could use a reference for the claim that no other form can compete with rapid transit or (better so there's no note in a caption) a rephrasing to eliminate the offending statement

  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):

#::* The history section seems to indicate that rapid transit began like Athena from Zeus's head; a short statement "predecessors" (to call them something( could be included if they exist. More detailed treatment of course belongs at the subarticle History of rapid transit, which is fine.

  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  2. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.: The discussions about the article name seem not to be active, so I don't see any basis for considering this article inherently unstable.
  3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): See above; otherwise, yes
  4. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: The main issue is the lack of sourcing in the safety and security section. The other issues are comparatively minor. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I have now addressed the concerns raised; if they are not to your standards do not hesitate to let me know, and I will further indulge in them. Arsenikk (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response. Having reread the article, I feel that my concerns have been dealt with. For that reason, I am passing this article. Again, great job and keep up the good work. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]