Talk:Transport in India/Archive 2

osuruk
kabaca osuruk aslinda yellenmedir bi osurdum koy patladi yarrak yiyen bir fikradir senin anani sikerim wikipedi at yarragi

A quick yay before getting back to work
I have got 200 edits in this artice, agreed most of them were crap, but it's still a big number, so yay..... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Images
All right, here's an update on the status of images:


 * Maharashtra : 3
 * Delhi : 2
 * Madhya Pradesh : 2
 * Andhra Pradesh : 1
 * Assam : 1
 * Goa : 1
 * Jammu and Kashmir : 1
 * Karnataka : 1
 * Rajasthan : 1
 * Tamil Nadu : 1
 * Uttar Pradesh : 1
 * Uttarakhand : 1
 * West Bengal : 1
 * Maps, charts and unidentified locations : 5

Total : 22 images

I guess that's about as representative as it gets! Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think more is needed, this is technically a general article, not meant to show too much detail..--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The pic Enthusiast added is a pic betw. the terminl bldg and the the plane, hence the buses. Is it appropriate, as it does NOT show any crowd whatsoever. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Further..
I added info abt the Atal Sarige. I changed added some million brazillions to the page where possible, all bracketted, and I feel that is not on top of the list now. Also, I added two citation tags to the local transport section, I have a feeling tht the lines involved aren't really necessary.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the info on Atal Sarige necessary here? It's a local initiative, and as such, I think should go onto the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation page rather than this one, in keeping with summary style. Also, I don't think the million brazillions ;-) are necessary, per WP:India conventions. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I thoght it would be a good add seeing that it does show the changing face of trnasport in india... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Need consensus
There are some controversial and unreferenced sentences in Local Transport section. We need to build a consensus on what to on these. Here are my suggestions:
 * "The roads in most cities are poorly maintained and full of potholes, while in villages they are frequently non-existent." - remove or replace by a sentence such as this: "During monsoon, road conditions in many cities and villages deteriorate considerably." We may not need a ref for this, but if found much better.
 * "Traffic generally moves slowly, where traffic jams and accidents are very common" - remove. Traffic may be slow in some cities during some period in a day, but more generalization is not needed. Also, next sentence has a ref for road accidents, so no problem.
 * A Reader's Digest study of traffic congestion in Asian cities ranked several Indian cities within the Top Ten for worst traffic. - OK, better if a ref can be found.
 * On the contrary, newly developed highways and expressways are among the best in subcontinent. - remove as it will be difficult to prove a source that can substantiate this (not just claim)

Also, alternatively, some sentences on exact quality of roads with refs can be added here. What do you think?--GDibyendu (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree about the point relating to uality of roads. As for the above 4, I think all the statements should be removed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A lot of that info looks like it's been taken from this article (could be the other way round as well). Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that whole paragraph ought to be removed. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a need to write the article from a neutral point of view. Why do you think that the whole paragraph should be removed? At least one sentence on road accident data is referenced. Other lines are also not blatant lies. Only issue is finding references to substantiate the generality. So much accidents happen not just because of reckless driving, road condition also comes into picture. --GDibyendu (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, buddy, you're the more experienced editor in this case so your statement is more valuable than mine. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to present both negative and positive points with refs. Positive in this case is PMGSY, Golden Quadrilateral etc. But, we don't need to generalize too much: for example, Bangalore and Calcutta faces a lot of traffic jam, but same is not true all over India.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Every city on earth has traffic jams, India isn't the only country with Jams...--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But, this is an article only on India.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that is my point. Is there even a neccessity to say that India has traffic jams? I mean, every city has it, nothing worth putting in an encyclopaedia... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I get your point. Traffic jam was just an example to show that things does not need to be generalized. I was not suggesting that information on traffic jam should be included.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the first and last sentences, and provided references for the other two that were in contention. Please discuss further progress. I feel the article is ready for a GA nomination now. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * perfect, I seriously think you should go for GAN now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

GAN
Now, we should go for WP:GAN. It may take a few months before someone hits the review though as already there is high backlog for Transport-related articles.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I decided to be bold and nominate the article at GAN. It's a GA nominee now. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot.. You know me, I aint that bold to go and nominate an article... or even contribute towards DYKs....  Regards,--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We've achieved a significant amount of progress on this one now. I think this should be moved out of INCOTM tomorrow to let another take its place. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I've already submitted a list of nominations and I'm hoping te selection is made soon. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

GA category?
Could someone add this article in the appropriate category at WP:GA? I've asked around, no one seems to know exactly where to put this.  Aditya  α ß 19:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I belive the correct catagory is Engineering and technology ? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that. Sub category?  Aditya  α ß 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Transport? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But even Transport has sub-sub categories! This is so frustrating.  Aditya  α ß 17:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion here, I've created a new subcategory Transport by region and added the article to it. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 08:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's an appropriate solution. Well done.  Aditya  α ß 17:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles#Engineering_and_technology Transport\? I'll ask some one like Tinucherian or Jay to look it up. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

New refs
4 refs are not working/have died. These will have to be replaced, or the sentences removed for the article to retain GA status.  Aditya  α ß 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll look into it ASAP. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. =)  Aditya  α ß 15:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Today the checklink was showing three red lines. One had a html/htm problem in url, another two were from timesonline.co.uk. Among these two urls, one has got changed now, updated accordingly. Checklink still shows 2 red lines, but the links are actually fine. If you search for 'Tata Nano', you'll get one of these two on first page of search results and the other one will be on second page. Both works. Probably the webserver on which this website is deployed has some checks against web crawlers etc. to avoid DOS attacks.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. Thanks for taking care of it.  Aditya  α ß 15:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)