Talk:Streetcars in Washington, D.C./GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 26, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The lead is a little unbalanced with an initial sentence, followed by a large paragraph, then a solitary concluding sentence. Better to balance it more evenly. The lead would also benefit from a thorough copy-edit. Phrases such as A bit later.... and Today streetcars, car barns, trackage, stations and right-of way of the system still exists in various states of usage. are poor writing.

Early transit in Washington: Service ended soon after it began. Why?

The next attempt at public transit arrived in the spring of 1830,... Arrived? - surely began would be better.

Metropolitan: The Washington and Georgetown's monopoly didn't last long. Why?

Horse-drawn chariots and the Herdic Phaeton Company: During this time, streetcars competed with numerous horse-drawn chariot companies. Chariots? Really? This conjures images of Ben Hur style races down the Mall. I think carriage would be better here for a nineteenth century transport system. If they were actually known as chariots at the time then this needs further explanation.

The switch to electric power: Horsecars, though an improvement over horse drawn wagons, were slow, dirty and inefficient. Horses needed to be housed and fed, created large amounts of waste, had difficulty climbing hills and were difficult to dispose of. Almost as soon as they were instituted, companies began looking for alternatives. This appears to introduce a point of view.

Red links are Ok, but there seem to be a lot of them. If teh artciles aren't going to be written, then perhaps they should be removed.

By early 1946, the company would place in service 489 of the streamlined, modern PCC model and, in the early 1950s, become the first in the nation to have an all-PCC fleet.[36] (Here's a General Electric ad about PCC cars in Washington.) Direct links like that to the add should be replaced by external links. Likewise (A map of the system in 1948).

I think a brief section at the end of the article summarising the DC Streetcar would be appropriate, rather than the hatnote at the top.

I recommend a thorough copy edit.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I repaired 14 dead links and tagged four more using WP:CHECKLINKS

reference #1,Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, By Columbia Historical Society (Washington, D.C.), page numbers are needed for the individual citations rather than the range 24–118

reference #41 [1] does not adquately support the assertion in the statement The rail of the WB&A become the property of Capital Transit

There are rather a lot of External Links, can they all be justified?
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

An interesting article, but there is a lot of work to be done. I am putting it on hold, initially for seven days and will inform major contributors and projects. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No substantive edit have been made in the past seven days and the issues have not been addressed so I am de-listing this. The article can be brought back to WP:GAN when the issue have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]