Talk:Delhi Metro/GA1

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

Comment: Funding section conviniently forgets to mention Japan's contribution. Looks like someone went to great lengths to remove any mention of Japan's role in funding the metro. A real shame since the metro would probably not be there without Japan's contribtuion. 65.51.218.48 (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above comment was made by an anonymous editor. Since a user account is required to conduct a review, I have left the comments as such, which could still be utilized to improve the article further, but the review is still open and seeking a valid reviewer. WTF? (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk)  13:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the article seems a bit short, and lacks some coverage of some areas I would like to see more about. Two articles I would recommend to look at for examples of good metro articles is SkyTrain (Vancouver) and Copenhagen Metro. In particular, the lead is far to short, history section "stops" in 2002, and the network section needs to be expanded considerably. There are also a few MOS and other issues as mentioned below.


 * Comments:
 * The lead is very short, see WP:LEAD. It should give a good summary of the article, not just a few lines.
 * Expanded. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not put company names in italics; see WP:ITALICS.
 * ✅ --MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In the infobox, locale should also mention the country
 * ✅ --MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Avoid links that link back to this article, such as 'DMRC'.
 * ✅ --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not force image sizes; do to accessibility reasons, some people may want larger or smaller images as set in the preferences.
 * ✅ --MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding ref 8 (as used in the history section), this is not how referencing is done on Wikipedia. Since it is a 15-page article, it is not necessary to include pages; however, if you want to, create a 'bibliography' section under the references, put the article there, and use separate ref to denote the exact pages.
 * ✅ Page reference dropped. Intentionally done as a seperate edit in case anyone disagrees. -MK 10:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But please clarify as to how else the Rp template is to be used. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The history section is fine, but stops abruptly in 2002. The history should continue past the opening of Phase I, and explain further planning and construction.
 * Further construction, planning etc. has been described in the Network section. Is it necessary to repeat it here? SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * All values need to be converted to imperial units (don't blame me, but the Americans don't understand international standards). Use convert for easy conversion; this also applies to tables.
 * ✅ Conversions in tables left out as it clutters up the tables (as in Vancouver Skytrain) but the figures (along with conversions) have been mentioned in the write-ups on each line. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The network section is too thin. Take a look at the network section in the SkyTrain article, or the route section in the Copenhagen article. In both cases there is a multi-paragraph description of the route/network. The route should be described in addition to the technical aspects (gauge, power supply etc).
 * ✅ --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Large parts of the network section is referenced.
 * ✅ --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Avoid the use of boldface within the tables.
 * Couldn't find any. Can you please provide one instance. I can cover the rest --MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Use an endash (–), not a hyphen (-), when saying "from/to" or "between", see WP:DASH.
 * ✅ --MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would have right-aligned the map and placed it at the top of the network section.
 * ✅ -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is there one section with "future extensions" and one for "route under construction"? All future plans should be placed in the same section.
 * ✅ -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Never use 'crore' on Wikipedia. While common in India and a few surrounding countries, no-one has ever heard of it in Europe or North America. Stick to common terms like thousand, million and billion. Also, do not use Rs., but the ISO code 'INR'. Conversion to US$ can be very biased and can fluctuate a lot; the current conversion has too many significant digits, and I would advise to avoid currency conversions at all (though I will not hold that against the article as part of the GA review).
 * The conversion template INRConvert uses "Rs" - I've requested for it to be fixed. Also, the original sources in some places use crore, and WP:ENGVAR seems to suggest that it is fine. Further, conversions to millions/billions have been provided in each instance of crore 's use. I've also added Indian English to the talk page, to clarify matters. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Never use an ampersand (&) in prose; use 'and'.
 * ✅ Couldn't find any. Perhaps already fixed. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't need to link to English; and if you do, don't link to 'British English', but 'English language'.
 * ✅ -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this to say that Google Transit is the only source to navigation information?
 * No, it just happens to one of the sources on which information was available. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Either under network or operations, could there be a section about stations, sticking the list of stations in a main template?
 * ✅ No separate stations, but link to the list provided. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The security section isn't referenced.
 * ✅ --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The ticketing system needs to be slightly revamped, removing boldface.
 * ✅ Was already fixed -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Delhi metro smart card.jpg is clearly copyrighted by the Delhi Metro. Mark it as such, and add a free use rationale, and I will permit its use here, although it is a border-line case.
 * The photograph was taken by another user and licensed under GFDL - can I make changes to the license? SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Delhi metro token.jpg is very bad quality; not only does the token only take up a small fraction of the image, but the image is underlit, and therefore has very low quality, making it impossible to see any details of the token itself. I would recommend that the image simply be removed from the article.
 * ✅ --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Am I to understand correctly that there is no monthly pass or similar? This may be the case, just not the way I'm used to things being.
 * Yes, there is no monthly pass. Smart cards (mentioned in the article) are available for longer durations of travel. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, a hyphen cannot be used for punctuation. Chose between an endash and an emdahs, see WP:DASH.
 * ✅ -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps 'safety' is a better word than 'issues'.
 * Sections reorganised. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If using US date syntax, there is always a comma (or period) after the year, not just before (i.e. Month DD, YYYY, ) Similarly, never put a -th ending on the day.
 * ✅ --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't think these malfunctioning train incidents are notable. Crashes resulting in a write-off or non-suicide fatalities would be, but not otherwise.
 * ✅ --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Phase I' is a proper noun, and should always be capitalized.
 * ✅ Could not find any instances. May have been previously fixed. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * '3.2 metre' should have a hyphen in it. As it also should be converted, use
 * ✅ Fixed previously. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to make separate article about the two classes of rolling stock. (not a GA criteria at all, just an idea).
 * Avoid 'at present' and similar. Instead, use 'as of 2010' or similar.
 * ✅ Fixed previously. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The last ref under 'rolling stock' is a bare link.
 * ✅ fixed that and other free formatted refs using cite-web. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 'automatic train control' is a common noun and should not be capitalized. The corresponding article should be moved as well.
 * ✅ already fixed. Not sure if moving corresp article should be in scope here. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 'TETRA' should not be in italics, nor anything else in italics in that section.
 * ✅ --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The 'Delhi Metro in popular culture' is at the verge of the limits, see WP:TRIVIA. In general, just being featured in a movie is not sufficient for mention, but if there is an film which centers around the system, then it might be worth mentioning, albeit perhaps in the history section. The bit about filming and cost could go into the operations section. Mention of particular films might be worthy of inclusion on the articles on each station.
 * Mention of specific films removed, general vital information retained. SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove the 'see also' entries, as they are all either mentioned in the prose, or in the navboxes.
 * ✅ already fixed -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Badarpur' and 'Ghaziabad' link to disambiguation pages.
 * ✅ --SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Link 22 is dead (see here)
 * ✅ No dead links found -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A number of the references are not up to standard: bare links are not good enough.
 * ✅ Fixed. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Italics should only be used for magazines and newspapers; just state DMRC, not "official website of DMRC".
 * ✅ pre-fixed. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * External links two and three are not really acceptable. Feel free to include them as relevant references.
 * ✅ pre-fixed. -MK 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall, very interesting and well-written article, although somewhat short in some places. I am placing the article on hold. Arsenikk (talk)  13:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Most issues have been addressed, and I've raised a couple of queries. Could you please clarify my doubts and verify whether the changes are up to the mark? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. The lead is still rather short; a more appropriate length would be similar to that of Copenhagen Metro. Btw, you don't have to reference information in the lead if it is mentioned other-place in the article. My main concern about the lead is that it presents a lot of less relevant information (that the Kolkata came first, who opened the line etc) while leaving out important information such as length, which boroughs/areas it serves, technical summary perhaps (voltage, power output), and mention all the lines, current and future. 'Rapid transit' should be linked at first mention and avoid using 'currently' in prose (unless referring to now, but not in the past; rather than now, but no in the future).
 * ✅ -- WorLD8115  ( TalK )   18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the ticket image, you (or anyone else) than DMRC cannot say "I'm author of this picture." if you take a ticket and scan it. Clearly it is a copyvio. As I mentioned above, at minimum mark it as copyrighted and add a fair use rationale, and then perhaps it is suitable. You might want to read more at Non-free content. I asked an experienced "image lawyer" to look at it, and he deleted the image as a clear case, stating that it does not meet of free image policy. Wikipedia has stated that copyright is important for us, and something we will respect.
 * Image deleted. -- SBC-YPR (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the documentation of Rp, you will see that this is indented for works that are cited a lot (starting in the 10s and upwards into the 100s). This is not the case in this article, as Rp is mainly meant to be used as Harvard style. Some quotes from the documentation: "This template should not be used unless necessary." and "This template is only intended for sources that are used many, many times in the same article, to such an extent that normal citation would produce a useless line in or too many individual ones. Overuse of this template will make prose harder to read,"
 * ✅ Thanks for the clarification - it has been replaced by a Harvard reference. -- SBC-YPR (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * *There are a bit too many instances of bullet points; these should never be used for longer section of prose. Definitively remove them from 'rolling stock' and 'ticketing', and I would have preferred them removed from 'planned extensions' and 'network'.
 * ✅ -- SBC-YPR (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In GA/FA articles, it is not normal to include a "in popular culture" section. If there have been written two books about the metro, either use them as references, or include them in a "further reading" section. Similarly, it is not common that quality articles with a large scope (i.e. megastructures, to use a buzzword) like this contian mention of all documentaries or films which have been made or mention them. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has been overloaded with unencyclopedic information like this in the past, but this is not normally permitted in quality articles.
 * Some of the references are missing accessdate, a few news items (for instance ref 3) lacks date, and . The IMDb ref cannot be used, because the only mention of the metro is based on a reader review. This fails WP:RS. Ref 68 is a bare link.
 * ✅ -- SBC-YPR (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not use all-caps in references, even if the source used them. All-caps is typography, not spelling or grammar.
 * ✅ --  WorLD8115  ( TalK )   18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The external links should be formatted as "official site" or "official website".
 * ✅ --  WorLD8115  ( TalK )   18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why there are "general references" in this article. All citiations need to be in-line, and as far as I can see, there are no indirect references to those. They are probably better used as external links.
 * ✅ --  WorLD8115  ( TalK )   18:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The conversions to US$ have too many sigificant digits.
 * ✅ -- SBC-YPR (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Still on hold. Arsenikk (talk)  21:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am failing the article. It has been five weeks since the initial review, and ten days since the last amendment of comments from me. The general rule is that is an article cannot be fixed up to meet the criteria within a week, it should be failed. Given the exhaustive time that has passed, and the lack of compliance with standards for popular culture-related issues, I am forced to fail the article. On the good side, the article has been significantly improved through the process, so it has by far not been wasted. Arsenikk (talk)  08:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review and comments, which were quite useful. Unfortunately, some of the issues could not be addressed in time. I will renominate the article after making all the necessary changes and further improvements – would you be amenable to taking up the review then? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it is better to take the time to fix an article until it is all ready and then re-nominate. I will consider re-reviewing a renomination it when the time comes (it depends on my available time and mood). Arsenikk (talk)  09:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)