Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority/1

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Washington_Metropolitan_Area_Transit_Authority/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result:  Delist - while some inappropriate information inferring discrimination has been deleted, no signs of people tackling the wider issues. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Article is quite a bit out of date, has unsourced content, contains trivia about who was in its leadership when, and contains quite a few weird sentences:
 * The committee will draft new bylaws (2011 source)
 * A gallery of photos of the art works is shown here, on the WMATA web site
 * is to be funded by a special taxing district that will cover commercial properties (2010 source). Femke (alt) (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I hate the Discrimination section. It gives a vague statement that there have been claims of discrimination within WMATA and then provides a table of gender and race as if readers are supposed to draw the implied conclusions on their own. Only after the table does it state what the nature of this discrimination is. I object to the Christine Townsend paragraph; it is so vague as to what the alleged sexual discrimination is. I also think a better source for that statement is. The advocacy advertising paragraph has an unfinished conclusion. Did the advocacy advertising ban hold up? Without a source linking the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority court challenge to the WMATA, I don't think that sentence even belongs in the article. The aforementioned problems of unsourced content and out of date information applies to this section as well. I think this article should be delisted. Steelkamp (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the table as it was both 18 years out of date and asking the reader to infer there is discrimination without actually linking to a source which makes that connection. In other words, it was original research. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the claim about the MTA, which is a non-sequitur. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)