Talk:Transportation in New York City/GA1

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

As part of the good article sweeps project, this article is being reviewed to ensure that it still meets the good article criteria. Currently it does not. Note that the GA criteria have changed since this article was passed. I am placing the article on hold for a week. However, there is a significant number of issues with the article; I will conduct a full review if significant work is done to clean up the article, in particular related to references. If not, the article will be delisted. If the article reaches the GA criteria at a later date, feel free to renominate it. Arsenikk (talk)  22:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead is extremely short, and should at least five times longer for an article this size.
 * Large portions of the article are unreferenced, such as "intercity rail", "buses", "ferries", "private cars", "roads", "bridges and tunnels", "expressways", "taxis", "semi-formal", "areal tramway", "airports", "seaports" and "future". The majority of the article seems to be unreferenced, including whole sections.
 * The main split between "background", "intracity transportation", "port infrastructure" and "future and proposed projects" is not intuitive; the article should be split into more subsections.
 * The article generally looks messy, partially due to incorrect placement of images and forcing white space. Images should not have their image size forced.
 * Some of the comparisons between cities seems a bit subjective and is bordering towards original research. Presenting bulks of numbers in comparison is often not as good as prose.
 * Taxi fares (and similar) will aways be dated and should be left out.
 * The future section needs converting to prose (not bullets).
 * "Further reading" should be after "references"
 * Several places in the article, there are a number of short paragraphs, even down to a single sentence.
 * The article has now been on hold for over a week, without any improvements. I will therefore delist the article. If the article in the future meets the GA criteria, feel free to renominate it. Arsenikk (talk)  15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)