Talk:Secunderabad Junction railway station

Comments
Main problem with the article is an absolute lack of references. Read WP:RS and WP:REF for information about references on wikipedia. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reassess: same grade. IRFCA, a fan club can not be considered a WP:RS. TOI, the Hindu, SC railway are examples of RS used in the article. The references are bare links and should be formatted using (for eg) cite web or cite news References 25, 26 in Commuter Rail are dangling in air. Sections like Station Layout, still lack a single ref. IMO, "Budget 2009-10" is an WP:UNDUE. There may be numerous budgets which may have mentioned the station, not needed. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference valid
The references at the IRFCA are valid as they are refereed from different books of Indian railways.(please see:Books : History, railway descriptions(IRFCA)).So they(only references on it's history) can be considered as references.-- Sharadbob Talk  C  08:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The budget mean that what the station has got through it, as an information on it's future.What is going to happen in it's future and are the plans to develop the station.-- Sharadbob Talk  C  08:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I agree that the Budget should not be involved in this page.-- Sharadbob  Talk  C  17:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick assessment
I was asked to stop by and provide a rating onto this article today. My first thought is that there is a good amount of content and there are plenty of references to support the assertions made in the text. However, I agree with the copyedit tag that is currently present at the top of the article, and the majority of the references that are listed need to be formatted using citation templates, such as cite web or cite news, for consistency and to provide additional pointers to the works cited when their urls change in the future (at the very least, we need page titles for each of the blank links that are listed). If there were only a couple of them, I would have updated the citations myself, but I don't have enough time right now to plow through all of them. I've gone through the lead section with a quick copyedit to give an example of the kinds of updates I see that need to be made. I think this article is close to being GA level, and could get there or even up to FA level with a little more work. It is the copyedit and the formatting of the references that are my main reasons for putting this as C class right now rather than B class. After a full copyedit, this article would easily be a good candidate to appear as the selected article on Portal:Trains. Slambo (Speak) 16:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)