Talk:Istanbul Metro/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 13:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Closed. Not listed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Has a reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}
There's been some reverts, but nothing out of the ordinary. Article appears stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Prose is tightly packed with statistics which for many readers is difficult to absorb. Typical sentence: "The trip between the Şişhane station in Beyoğlu and the Haciosman station in Maslak is 20 km (12.4 mi) long and takes 27 minutes; including Şişhane - Taksim (1.65 km, 2 minutes), Taksim - 4. Levent (8.5 km, 12 minutes), and 4. Levent - Haciosman (8.1 km, 12 minutes.)" There is not much prose in the article, and much of it is sentences like that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

MoS issues. Lead does not follow guidance at WP:Lead - it does not provide an adequate standalone summary of the article. Layout is cluttered, with too many very small sections, inhibiting reading flow and making the article look cluttered. Some sections are mere lists; indeed, a large proportion of the article is comprised of lists. There are a large number of images - some of these squeeze the text, others are lined up in a column. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images. There are a lot of images - some of these impact on the layout, so failing MoS criteria, others are simply repetitive, so bringing in questions of relevance. The captions merely indicate which station they are, providing no other rationale for the image. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inadequate sourcing. Article has been tagged with needing cites since August 2012, and I have noticed several areas that would benefit from inline cites. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

The article has some basic information about the Istanbul Metro, but this information has not yet been presented in a readable, organised and presentable form. While not yet Good Articles, Paris Métro, Glasgow Subway, Amsterdam Metro, and London Underground, indicate the direction the article could take. As it currently stands the article does not meet GA criteria, so I have stopped reviewing. I feel there is more work to be done than can be achieved in a reasonable time frame, and the best way forward would be to close this review, the article built up and appropriately sourced, and then renominated. However, if one or more editors are prepared to roll up their sleeves and start work on improving the article I am happy to keep the review open, provide feedback on progress, and to assist with the work. I'll put the review on hold for an initial seven days to see what people wish to do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate for putting iton hold i have college stuff to do so i am busy as hell. kazekagetr 08:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. I'll close this review. You can nominate again when you are less busy, and the article has been developed a little further, and has more inline cites. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]