Talk:Transportation in South Florida/GA2

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 02:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a day or so. Dana boomer (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to fail this article's GA nomination. There are significant problems, most notably with sourcing, that prevent the article from being GA status at this time. Details:
 * Lack of sourcing in many areas that give statistics or opinions. Watch for language like "known for". Examples include:
 * Taxis section
 * Parking section
 * Vehicle dependence, last half of third paragraph
 * Miami International Airport, first paragraph
 * Other section
 * Public transportation, last quarter of paragraph (also, this paragraph could stand to be split)
 * Busway vs. rail controversy - any section with "controversy" in the name pretty much automatically needs good sourcing
 * Bicycling - the first ref in this paragraph only covers a tiny bit of the statistics that are given prior to it, so better sourcing is needed.
 * Language that is unencyclopedic. Examples include:
 * Florida high-speed rail section, "Scott's harebrained denial" (harebrained?)
 * Bicycling, "allows you to locate" ("you")
 * Metrorail, "The stops that don't" (contraction)
 * Several sources are missing basic information such as title, publishers and access dates (for web references).
 * What makes ref #18 (Metromover reviews) a reliable source?
 * Refs #14 and 15 (unformatted Miami-Dade refs) both dead link
 * Ref #41 (Alfonso Chardy) dead links
 * Dab link to Busway
 * Layout. There are a few spots were there are a bunch of really short subsections, which make the article very choppy. For example, the Sea section has a very short intro paragraph and then three subsections that range from short to really short. Some of the information (for example on Port Everglades) is actually already duplicated between the subsections. The short subsections in Air are another example.
 * Galleries are generally discouraged in articles unless they add significantly to the reader's understanding of the subject. In this case, I don't think that's true. There are a couple of the images that could probably be placed in the body of the article, but overall I think that they're unnecessary. For example, why do we need a picture of a parking garage in the gallery when we already have one in the Vehicle dependency section?

Overall, the lack of sourcing (including dead linked refs that leave additional information unreferenced) is the biggest issue. At this point, I think that it is too much work to be completed within the normal hold period of GAN, and so I am failing the nomination. It looks like you have put a lot of work into this article, and I think you've made a really good start. However, because you've chosen a subject that by its nature includes a lot of statistics, the sourcing is going to need to be brought up to snuff before it can be of GA quality. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)