Talk:Rapid transit/GA1
GA Review
[edit]I am reviewing the article (actually I started before adding this page) and when finished reviewing will put the review here. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
#::* The safety and security section has no references. Note 7 refers to "While 2002". Presumably this is a typo for "White 2002"? The caption on image:Taipei MRT Shimen station.jpg could use a reference for the claim that no other form can compete with rapid transit or (better so there's no note in a caption) a rephrasing to eliminate the offending statement
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
#::* The history section seems to indicate that rapid transit began like Athena from Zeus's head; a short statement "predecessors" (to call them something( could be included if they exist. More detailed treatment of course belongs at the subarticle History of rapid transit, which is fine.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
The discussions about the article name seem not to be active, so I don't see any basis for considering this article inherently unstable.
- 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):
See above; otherwise, yes
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
The main issue is the lack of sourcing in the safety and security section. The other issues are comparatively minor. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Thank you for the review. I have now addressed the concerns raised; if they are not to your standards do not hesitate to let me know, and I will further indulge in them. Arsenikk (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quick response. Having reread the article, I feel that my concerns have been dealt with. For that reason, I am passing this article. Again, great job and keep up the good work. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. I have now addressed the concerns raised; if they are not to your standards do not hesitate to let me know, and I will further indulge in them. Arsenikk (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)