Talk:Rapid transit/GA1

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

I am reviewing the article (actually I started before adding this page) and when finished reviewing will put the review here. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

#::* The safety and security section has no references. Note 7 refers to "While 2002". Presumably this is a typo for "White 2002"? The caption on image:Taipei MRT Shimen station.jpg could use a reference for the claim that no other form can compete with rapid transit or (better so there's no note in a caption) a rephrasing to eliminate the offending statement #::* The history section seems to indicate that rapid transit began like Athena from Zeus's head; a short statement "predecessors" (to call them something( could be included if they exist. More detailed treatment of course belongs at the subarticle History of rapid transit, which is fine.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.: The discussions about the article name seem not to be active, so I don't see any basis for considering this article inherently unstable.
 * 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):  See above; otherwise, yes
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: The main issue is the lack of sourcing in the safety and security section. The other issues are comparatively minor. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I have now addressed the concerns raised; if they are not to your standards do not hesitate to let me know, and I will further indulge in them. Arsenikk (talk)  19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response. Having reread the article, I feel that my concerns have been dealt with. For that reason, I am passing this article. Again, great job and keep up the good work. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail: The main issue is the lack of sourcing in the safety and security section. The other issues are comparatively minor. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I have now addressed the concerns raised; if they are not to your standards do not hesitate to let me know, and I will further indulge in them. Arsenikk (talk)  19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response. Having reread the article, I feel that my concerns have been dealt with. For that reason, I am passing this article. Again, great job and keep up the good work. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response. Having reread the article, I feel that my concerns have been dealt with. For that reason, I am passing this article. Again, great job and keep up the good work. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)