GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 10:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I will get started on researching your concerns, but will give you a chance to finish your review. I would like to get this wrapped up as quickly as possible. Again, thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 21:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This looks to be quite a reasonable article and should make GA-status this time round.
Working my way through the article, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last, my view are comments are given below. If I don't comment here on a particular section, that means that I've not found any "problems", or I found a minor problem and fixed it as I worked down the article.
Please see my changes. Racepacket ( talk) 03:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In response to your question, above, the final sentence in the final paragraph of Overview is verified by ref 8 ("Metro seeking next generation fare payment system". WMATA. Retrieved April 21, 2011.). That could be used to "verify" a new final summary paragraph in Criticism expanding on your comment above, i.e. "The features have not be implemented" and " Metro has issued an RFP for a replacement system, so further development of this system is under a cloud.". That should effectively counter any claim on my part that the information has not been updated. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
...I'm stopping my review at this point, its "bedtime" here. I'll review in the morning and make a decision on whether to place an "On Hold" on the review. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
As all the "problems" identified above have been resolved, I regard this article as being compliant with WP:WIAGA
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an informative article. Pyrotec ( talk) 11:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk) 10:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I will get started on researching your concerns, but will give you a chance to finish your review. I would like to get this wrapped up as quickly as possible. Again, thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 21:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This looks to be quite a reasonable article and should make GA-status this time round.
Working my way through the article, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last, my view are comments are given below. If I don't comment here on a particular section, that means that I've not found any "problems", or I found a minor problem and fixed it as I worked down the article.
Please see my changes. Racepacket ( talk) 03:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In response to your question, above, the final sentence in the final paragraph of Overview is verified by ref 8 ("Metro seeking next generation fare payment system". WMATA. Retrieved April 21, 2011.). That could be used to "verify" a new final summary paragraph in Criticism expanding on your comment above, i.e. "The features have not be implemented" and " Metro has issued an RFP for a replacement system, so further development of this system is under a cloud.". That should effectively counter any claim on my part that the information has not been updated. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
...I'm stopping my review at this point, its "bedtime" here. I'll review in the morning and make a decision on whether to place an "On Hold" on the review. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
As all the "problems" identified above have been resolved, I regard this article as being compliant with WP:WIAGA
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an informative article. Pyrotec ( talk) 11:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)