Talk:Metrorail (Miami-Dade County)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 15:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article, although not necessarily today. Arsenikk (talk)  15:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Images
 * Please do not force images sizes, as readers may have many good reasons to adjust the thumbnail size. For portrait-aligned images, use the "upright" syntax. (fixed)
 * Done


 * Captions which are not sentences should not have periods, for instance "The recently completed MetroPath bridge over the entrance to the Snapper Creek Expressway" is not a sentence.
 * Fixed


 * I notice you have uploaded some of your own images of the system to the Commons. This is really appreciated, but could you please add categories to the images, even if it is just to the main Metrorail category.
 * Done


 * I cannot find any permission to use File:Metro um.jpg on the site it claims it is from.
 * Not a good picture anyway


 * If you want another free historic image, see here
 * Thanks


 * Galleries should not be used except in special circumstances. If you want the images included, just stick them in appropriate places along the text.
 * Gone


 * References
 * While parts of the article are properly referenced, major sections lack references, such as "trains and track information" and "airportlink". All information needs to be referenced (except the most obvious, such as Miami being in Florida).
 * Should be easy
 * Done


 * All references need at minimum to contain a title and either an author, work or publisher. If they are online, they need an accessdate. Dates should be consistently formatted.
 * Those four that don't are unfortunately no longer available
 * Links replaced
 * Dates are still not consistent, with half of them in incorrectly-formatted ISO standard and half of them in American standard. Arsenikk (talk)  22:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * YYYY-MM-DD is the proper imperial format correct, while DD month written out YYYY is the ISO way, correct? Which format should it use? Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On WP we've decided to stick to three different formatting: 5 January 2012; January 5, 2012 or 2012-01-05. The latter should only be used when space is at a minimum and should contain leading zeros. This isn't the biggest issue, but it looks odd where there are two different date formats in the same reference, that is all. Arsenikk (talk)  20:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Prose and style
 * The see also section should not contain links which are elsewhere in the prose or in an infobox navbox.
 * Removed some. It's nice to have some isolated (mover, tri-rail)
 * The ideal Wikipedia article does not have a see also section. Sometimes this is necessary, but any incorporation into the text is better. The see also section is for links which simply cannot be placed anywhere else, neither in infoboxes nor in the prose. Arsenikk (talk)  22:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I will place the article on hold for now until the issues mentioned have been seen to. Afterwards I will make a through pass-through of the prose. Overall the article looks good and the content looks comprehensive. Arsenikk (talk)  21:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All problems have been mitigated. I'm not sure if these were your only criteria for passage or just the first round. Daniel Christensen (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything in the article needs a reference. There are still many places which are not referenced. For instance, the second paragraph under construction, three of the sections under train and track information and two paragraphs under AirportLink are all unreferenced. As noted, I am focusing on the referencing for now, and then I'll look at the prose and style. Also note that images should not be "sandwiched", i.e. placed right and left at the same horizontal level (such as in the MetroPath section). Arsenikk  (talk)  22:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it now? Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies for missing your last post. Yes, the referencing is looking much better. I'll go through the prose with a copy-edit and return here with any issues. Arsenikk (talk)  21:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Overall, I feel the article covers the topic well, is well-referenced, includes relevant information and is well-illustrated. There are some prose and style issues and I feel the information needs a more logical structure. Arsenikk (talk)  20:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Further comments:
 * The lead mentions this is the only rapid transit in Florida (which is fine), but the last, single-sentence paragraph about it being one of two in southwestern US is very detailed and I would recommend it be removed (mentioning this elsewhere is fine). (fixed)
 * Just for your information (and you don't have to remove it), but it is not necessary to add references to the lead unless writing about highly controversial topics.
 * Some of the sentences are very long and I have broken a few in two. (fixed)
 * Groundbreaking book place in June 1979, but construction began in December 1980? Doesn't quite make sense.
 * Avoid weasel terms like "in fact", as the sentence is just as well understood without and becomes more neutral. Similarly, "tragically low" is biased. (fixed)
 * Don't link within the article (e.g. #Sectionname) (fixed)
 * I noticed a few British spellings and changed them to American, as this is a US topic. (fixed)
 * There is a fair bit of repeated linking. (fixed)
 * What makes Critical Miami a reliable source? From what I can see, it is a blog.
 * The launch of a information video is hardly notable (although a good reference and a good video, I must say). (fixed)
 * Showing the impact of the metro is important, as you have done towards the end of the history section. But I don't quite see what Brownsville Transit Village's plumbing system has to do with the metro.
 * A lot of the information in the AirportLink section and history section duplicate each other, and even contradict each other as to the progress of construction.
 * Note that on Wikipedia, only acronyms and initialisms use all-caps. For trademarks, use standard case, even if the company itself uses all-caps in marketing. Thus it is Easy Card, not EASY Card. Similarly, this also applied to newspaper title, were we use start case even if the source uses all-caps. (fixed)
 * Avoid contractions: write "were not" instead of "weren't". (fixed)
 * For newspapers, use  instead of , as this gives the newspapers name in italics. (fixed)
 * There area still a few sections lacking references.
 * Try to avoid terms like "information" in section headers. Also "recent history" is a bit too vague.
 * In general, statistic dumps are discouraged on Wikipedia. Although this is sometimes a good idea, it is most often best to describe the statistics in prose. Incorporation of ridership figures in the history prose, focusing on periods of growth and stagnation, would be ideal. Also, with the current table, older ridership figures are not presented. It is more informative to, for instance, give the value for every fifth year instead of the last dozen years.
 * Personally I would not include the station list, as it is a stand-alone list (albeit including Metromover), but I will leave this decision to you.
 * My final concern is the structure of the information. What is included is good (with the few exceptions noted about) and I do not expect more information. I find the layout of where information lays confusing and partially repetitive. For instance, rolling stock and "track" are located together, but part of the infrastructure is discussed in the history section, in part of the AirportLink section, in part in the stations section and in part under metropath. Concerning the history, it should be structured chronologically. Start with proposals and planning, including discarded plans, and continue with financing and construction. Continue with extensions, ridership development and then enter the half-penny issue and finally the extension. Future expansions not under construction should be under a seperate top-level section. I would recommend the AirportLink section be abolished all-together. Two good examples for the structure are Bergen Light Rail and Copenhagen Metro. You have to figure out the exact sections and order yourself, but I hope the points and examples can help.
 * Please note that I will fail the article seven days after my last comment if no significant work has been started by then. <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  10:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A week has passed, and despite a reminder here and on the talk page, nothing has been done. I am therefore failing the review. <strong style="color:green;">Arsenikk <sup style="color:grey;">(talk)  21:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)