Talk:CityRail/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 10:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: fixed double redirects. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: four found and fixed. I note also that North West Rail link is only available to logged in users, presumably employees, so this should be removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There are are a lot of single sentences and very short paragraphs which should be consolidated.
 * Lead does not comply with WP:LEAD - should be four paragraphs maximum.
 * Organization: The article starts with the Operations section. I would expect to find some History and background first.
 * The newly introduced timetable increase the station dwelling time and increase the amount of time a train is expected to arrive at the destination. Grammar!
 * In April 2008, 99.6% of all services ran, and 92.6% of these services arrived within five minutes of their scheduled arrival time. However a 2007 report by Hong Kong's Mass Transit Railway Corporation found that Sydney's train system reliability levels lagged behind international benchmarks. -Chronological order?
 * Network Rather too many lists here. What is the purpose of the colour coded dots?  Consider recasting in prose.  We don't need a complete reproduction of material that is easily found on the company website and at stations.  This is an encyclopaedia article about the rail system overall, not a travel guide for passengers.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * See notes under linkrot above.
 * There are a number of un-cited statements. I am putting in cn tags where I think they are necessary.
 * In the section, Passenger Information Systems, there is a reference that the cabinets holding the screens were made by a sheet metal manufacturer (which is unnecessary trivia), but nothing to support the statements about the various types of systems, which looks like OR.
 * There is some inconsistency in the citation details. CityRail is used fairly frequently, sometimes wik-linked, sometimes not, sometimes attributed to RailCorp.
 * Those references that I checked appeared to support the statements.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * In 2009 CityRail ran ten types of rolling stock, in two categories: electric multiple units (EMUs) for suburban and interurban working, and diesel multiple units (DMUs) for interurban and regional lines running through less populated areas Ok that was two years ago - how about an update?
 * There are two types of trains currently being delivered to CityRail. Currently? This is an encyclopaedia, needs updating and specific dates.
 * The article is badly organized as stated above, there is much unnecessary trivia, such as details of the manufacturer of stell cabinets. Focus on the purpose, which is to create an article about a city,s rail based transit system. Plan a structure and follow it, this may mean substantial rewriting. I would suggest London Underground as a good model.  I note that is also B class and this article, as it stands, is definitely not.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable
 * 1) 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):
 * I think rather too many images are used. I see no purpose in the gallery of train indicators.  The CityRail ticket is obviously a copyvio and I have nominated it for deletion at Commons. I have also nominated File:RonChristieplan.jpg at WP:Possibly unfree files/2011 December 2#Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article has far too many problems to be sorted out in a week. It needs a complete overhaul and rethink.  I know that it has sat in the queue for months, but that time could have been used to by the nominator to check the WP:WIAGA criteria and thus avoid disappointed.  Next time, I suggest that you submit to peer review before nominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)