Talk:Metrorail (Miami-Dade County)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Hghyux (talk · contribs) 00:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Checklist 1

 * Not an obvious failure ✅ Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article should be clearly written, in good prose, with correct spelling and grammar. Check for coherent formatting, good organization of the article into sections, appropriate use of wikilinks, and other aspects of the Manual of Style referred to in the Good article criteria. After you have read the article, check that the lead section is a good summary and introduction to the topic. ✅ Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article should be factually accurate according to reliable sources, with inline citations (typically using either footnotes or Harvard (parenthetical) references) for the six types of material named in the GA criteria. The article should not copy text from sources without quotation or in text attribution, and it should not contain any original synthesis of source material, or other forms of original research. Perfectly formatted citations are not required. ✅ Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article should broadly cover the topic without unnecessary digressions. The article may, and sometimes should, go into detail, but it is not required to be comprehensive. ✅ Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article should be written from the neutral point of view: this viewpoint strives to represent all other views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Ensure that the article describes disputes without engaging in them. ✅ Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article should be stable, with no ongoing edit wars: constructive article improvement and routine editing does not apply here. ✅ but barely Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is free of obvious copyright violations. Reviewers can use several tools, as well as Google searches, to help establish whether material has been plagiarised or cut-and-paste from some of the electronic sources used; but this is not a trivial undertaking. ✅ No issues here. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Passed the required criteria. I would like to remind the nom though about WP:OWN though due to a recent rollback of an IP adding correct NPOV changes. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Checklist 2
This list will only be checked if the first list passes 100%


 * Article is well referenced. ✅ 67 references is very good, though I encourage the nom to focus on adding more because only 2 were added since the last nomination. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Article is copyvio free. ✅ Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good improvement since last nomination. While not a full pass, I have to say there is a desire to improve. 10/20 of the last nominator's concerns were resolved, and overall, the article has improved. Good job! Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Result


 * Successful Nomination :9 Pass: :1 OK: :0 Fail:
 * Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary

OK, so I won't go into a whole drama fest of problems because there are a few trivial ones that could use some fixing, but the previous reviewer should have known to give solutions and not problems, so here is what I suggest...


 * 1) You do not own this article. Let others help, and don't use rollback on an honest good faith edit. (I nearly ended the review there by the way)
 * 2) Please maintain a neutral article if a disagreement shows up.
 * 3) PLEASE focus on adding reliable references. You cannot have too much sourcing.

Overall just continue to maintain the article in a positive way. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others)