Talk:Andheri railway station

Image addition

It would seem that a user has disputed the addition of images. Request viewers of the page to pls ad their comments. Superfast1111 (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/3-stations-set-for-a-103-crore-makeover/articleshow/10976979.cms. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Andheri railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 20:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a) (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):

   b) (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a) (reference section):

   b) (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a) (major aspects):

   b) (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a )(images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):

   b) (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

This article as a lot of potential, but it's not yet GA quality. I've put it on hold for now, but unless there's substantial change in the 7-day period I don't believe it should be promoted. Some issues that need fixing are listed below. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• The existing prose needs a major copyedit. There is a great deal of awkward phrasing, poor connections between sentences, and so on.
• Images are haphazardly located with inconsistent sizes - all should be the default thumbnail size unless there is a significant reason otherwise.

 Done - Removed the unneccessary images.

That is not what I said. The images should be included in the article, but located properly and with default thumbnail sizes.

For excess images that were "out of order". I didn't removed all.

• The map has rendering errors from being cropped from a large PNG file. An SVG version modified from File:Mumbai suburban rail map.svg should replace it. The map also needs a legend - either in the map itself, or the caption - to explain what the various lines mean.

 Done

I did not say to remove the map. I said that it needed to be improved and to have a legend.

Comment : legend is found on its route collapsible map.

• A more exact location (street address, or cross streets) should be given in the infobox

 Not done - Google maps doesn't lie

Not the geographic coordinates, but the street address.

• There is a substantial gap in history - what happened between 1934 and 2011? That needs at least a paragraph or two of well-cited information.
• The history is all out of order and doesn't follow a logical path. Much of the station layout section should be moved under history.

Pi.1415926535 Ok thanks a tonne for this review. It has been modified continuously and still you see errors. And why bothering about history where i had mentioned it prior old name Salsette Trombay railway. And if any continuous copyediting fails to promote it to GA, i will prefer that this article was much better in its original revision history. Coz actually the original revised edit was much in its form rather mine who kept work on it. Still if its not done then fail it and bring it back to its original revision. I had worked on it not vandalised it and after working i had brought to GA. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You've done good work, I don't want to diminish that. The article is definitely better for your efforts. It still needs a lot of work to reach GA status, but that's okay - Wikipedia is always a process.

There's a lot of history between 1934 and 2011. When was the station rebuilt? When were platforms constructed? What events happened at the station? Those are the sort of things worth including in the history. See Lynn (MBTA station) for an example of a GA with a lengthy history section. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Mate, i had done the most as per my side. Despite my exile i had worked on it some how. And per you talking about Lynn station, i have been referred "your MBTA GA articles" only my friend. As you have sufficient knowledge of MBTA, so i do have of Mumbai railways. I can say, i have given my time to this article at my best. Good luck and thanks. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 12:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you have done your best. But since you are not interested or not able to make several of the important changes I suggested, I don't see what you're trying to get out of this. GA isn't a trophy for trying. It's a recognition that an article has been improved to a certain level of quality. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: brother, I didn't said its trophy, i said it has been worked upon it and plus the revision i showed u before re-assessing wasn't that encyclopedic. And may i know which part of "Section Layout" needs to be in history section? SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs should be incorporated into the history section. However, as there has been no meaningful improvement on most of the significant issues with the article in over a week, I believe it is a fail for now. If substantial progress is made in the future, I would be willing to do a second review. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.