Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Metrolink (California)/1

Metrolink (California)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: delist 07:16, 24 September 2017 Sportsguy17

Lots of cleanup tags can be seen throughout the article, including "Citation needed", "Clarification needed", and a multiple issues tag in one section. I'm not sure as to whether or not this article can be saved so I'm reaching out to the community to help me decide. Best, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rolling stock section suffers from the usual railfan cruft; that's reason alone to delist it if that can't be addressed. Mackensen (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Since I'm not super familiar with WP:TRAINS besides a limited set of articles I've edited, can you explain what is and is not considered railfancruft vs. actual information that can be included (I'm going to take a stab it and you can tell me how good my assessment is)? I see stuff about where certain locomotives had previously been assigned or where they will be assigned after retirement, their usage, and when they were involved in accidents. Those all don't seem like necessary info. If I knew nothing about trains and read the article, I'd not only have absolutely no desire to remember that information but I also would get a bit lost from that. Now, other information such as upcoming retirements and new equipment orders that can be confirmed with reliable sources plus equipment written off from notable accidents seem like it should be included. Is that more or less correct or am I missing a piece? I'm just guessing based on GNG, but I'm also less familiar in the process of determining what is useful information vs. railfan cruft. Nonetheless, the rolling stock section is an enormous mess. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 14:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all the stuff in the Notes section. It's unnecessary and unsourced; in many cases unsourceable. Mackensen (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Given your comment above and the fact that the nominator hasn't edited in 4+ years, is it okay for me to just outright delist it given the unlikelihood of the issues being resolved in a timely manner? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the comments above and the lack of response from the nom (4+ years of no editing), I'm delisting. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 17:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]