GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article falls short of the good article criteria. The main issue is the lack of proper referencing; in average perhaps half the article is not referenced at the moment. There are a number of other issues as well:
This is an incomplete list of issues, but shows a good starting place. The article is in need of a very thorough copyedit, a partial restructuring of information and a full referencing before being suitable as a good article. Arsenikk (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Whilst I might take issue with one or two of Arsenikk's points, on the whole I agree that the article is nowhere near close to being GA.
The problem, which infects many of the rail and subway articles, is that it is written mostly by railfans, who tend to throw in a lot of details that would quickly lose the average reader. The article is like a basement that hasn't been cleaned in many years, with a huge accumulation of material in no particular order. It is also poorly sourced, containing many statements that are likely true, but that one would be hard pressed to "prove" if asked by a skeptical reviewer.
Getting the article up to GA quality would be a very big job, given the complexity of the subject. Marc Shepherd ( talk) 23:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the article falls short of the good article criteria. The main issue is the lack of proper referencing; in average perhaps half the article is not referenced at the moment. There are a number of other issues as well:
This is an incomplete list of issues, but shows a good starting place. The article is in need of a very thorough copyedit, a partial restructuring of information and a full referencing before being suitable as a good article. Arsenikk (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Whilst I might take issue with one or two of Arsenikk's points, on the whole I agree that the article is nowhere near close to being GA.
The problem, which infects many of the rail and subway articles, is that it is written mostly by railfans, who tend to throw in a lot of details that would quickly lose the average reader. The article is like a basement that hasn't been cleaned in many years, with a huge accumulation of material in no particular order. It is also poorly sourced, containing many statements that are likely true, but that one would be hard pressed to "prove" if asked by a skeptical reviewer.
Getting the article up to GA quality would be a very big job, given the complexity of the subject. Marc Shepherd ( talk) 23:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)