Talk:Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / District of Columbia / District of Columbia - Washington Metro (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia - Washington Metro (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Maryland (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Virginia (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Trains / Rapid transit / Washington Metro (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
P train.svg
Trains Portal
Sel week 14, 2013
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Transport (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Regarding linguistic features:

1. Is this section truly pertinent?

2. Is it accurate? People occasionally refer to to Metrorail as the subway; I would change "never" to something like "seldom." Also, what is the source for rhyming "WMATA" with "Ramada"? I have been in this area longer than WMATA has been in existence, and I have never heard that usage.

I've always pronounced it that way myself, as do many other people I know. I'm not sure that I've ever heard anybody on the news pronounce it that way, but I'd say it's at least in common usage. I'm not too sure about that sample sentence for using Metro as a verb, though. I don't typically use it as a verb myself - and I don't know many people who do - but if I did it wouldn't be in such a generic sentence. -Etoile 14:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I pronounce it WMATA all the time. Schuminweb 04:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For a short time, announcements over the public address system would prounounce "WMATA" to sound like "Ramada," and then only when referring to the website, wmata.com. This practice stopped -- thankfully -- when they obtained the metroopensdoors.com domain. Perhaps this happened because unless you knew that Metro was operated by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, you'd have no idea how to spell "WMATA." (Womatta? Wamada?) (Fredo 29 June 2005 21:07 (UTC))
The customer service phone system recordings also referred to the website as "www.wmata.com" even after MetroOpensDoors.com was registered. It now reflects the new address, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.80.167 (talkcontribs)

Web Links[edit]

As Metroopensdoors.com shows a short introduction and then redirects to WMATA.com, I feel it is redundant to have both links on the Wikipedia page. Schuminweb 04:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Names[edit]

I have trimmed and copyedited the "names" section in the article to make it more concise, and removed the part that talks about why the "metropolitan" in WMATA.

The reason for the term "Metropolitan" instead of "city" in the names of many Washington, D.C. organizations (such as the Washington D.C. police, the Metropolitan Police Department, or MPD) is that Washington, D.C. is technically not a city, for obvious political reasons. [citation needed]

I'm not entirely sure the reason given below for "metropolitan" in WMATA. I actually think it has more to do with how WMATA funding is spread across the regional jurisdictions, and that for political reasons "washington metropolitan" was preferred over "national". I don't have a citation for this off the top of my head, but can look for one. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Purple Line[edit]

The Purple Line is not intended to go around the beltway-it will actually cut very close to the border of DC at parts (just after Silver Spring it will be less than a mile from the border), and will connect (as directly as possible) Bethesda > Silver Spring > New Carrolton, which will keep it many miles from the beltway. That, and the Purple Line isn't even being discussed as an actual Metro extension (they're leaning towards BRT, but the best we'd get is Light Rail). Does anyone object to these changes? -Rmeskill 18:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:WMATA Metro Logo.svg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

File:WMATA Metro Logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Impacts of the 2008 financial crisis[edit]

Can somebody please explain the leaseback scheme in more detail? (Also, today the judge will be issuing a ruling.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Metro and Belgian bank, KBC Group, reached a settlement on November 15, 2009 to end a long-term leasing deal after nearly three days of talks in federal court.

The agreement benefits the riders of our system and taxpayers of this region,” said Metro General Manager John Catoe outside of U.S. District Court. “Metro no longer faces the immediate threat of cuts to our capital budget and a downgrading of our credit rating.” All parties agreed not to discuss the terms of the settlement. KBC Group was seeking an immediate $43 million payment from Metro after the credit rating of insurer, American Insurance Group, was recently downgraded. The downgrade put the deal in a technical default and allowed the bank to seek payment because AIG had guaranteed the agreement between KBC and Metro. Metro had asked a federal judge to temporarily bar the bank from collecting payment. The judge urged a compromise after hearing arguments at a Wednesday court hearing. “It sends a strong message to other banks that they cannot make a financial windfall at the expense of transit riders,” Catoe said. The case was being closely watched by financial institutions and other transit agencies that have received similar demands from other banks. Metro has 14 similar lease agreements with financial institutions. Several banks have threatened to put the agency into default under the agreements unless Metro finds additional high-rated insurance coverage of the deals now that AIG’s credit rating has been downgraded. Metro and a group of 30 other transit agencies have asked the Treasury Department or Federal Reserve to back the insurers’ guarantees of the deals. “We’re asking the federal government to guarantee the insurer’s credit rating,” Catoe said. “This would be at little to no cost to the federal government, and the transit agencies would no longer be in technical default of the contracts.” The chief executives of several major transit agencies will join Metro on Capitol Hill Tuesday urging Congress to legislate a provision in the economic stimulus bill to require the Treasury Department to back AIG and other insurers’ credit ratings. 72ChevyNova (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I will review this article. Arsenikk (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you for reviewing this article. I look forward to working with you and resolving any concerns or questions. Racepacket (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


An interesting article which I enjoyed reading, especially since I took the Metro a few years back. My main concern about this article is related to scope. Overall, the article under-focuses on the network and services and the history between the establishment and recent events. At the same time, it tends to over-focus on governance and recent events. The best article within the scope of a transit agency seems to be Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, and although I'm sure it isn't perfect, it may be a very good place to gather inspiration.

Comments related to prose and style
  • The article has US bias. For instance, 'Congress' is mentioned before the mention of the area it serves. In addition, there is no mention wheresoever of what country it is in. - US added
  • Specifically, I would suggest that the segment "created by an interstate compact, authorized by Congress," be moved to later in the lead. - it is an essential element of describing the institution.
  • Infoboxes are not appropriate places for external links (beyond official sites). The "key documents" should be moved to an external link section, if they are even appropriate there (which I am uncertain of). - the charter is hosted on the official site, but is very central to understanding the organization, which is otherwise very misunderstood. Since infoboxes are not required by the GA criteria, isn't this a matter of discretion?
  • Avoid repeating links in {{main}} later in the paragraph. For instance, a reader may very well not understand that 'Washington Metro' and 'Metrorail' are the same. - done
  • The information on coordination issues should be converted from bulletpoints to prose, and mention more on with whom the agency cooperates. - done
  • "Interstate compact" is not a proper noun and thus not capitalized. - fixed
  • Link the defunct bus companies, even if they are red. -ok
  • Terms like "Board of Directors" and "City Administrator" are not capitalized, as they are common nouns, unless used as a title in front of the name.
WP:MOS says, "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper nouns (The British Prime Minister is David Cameron; Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France). Royal styles are capitalized (Her Majesty; His Highness); exceptions may apply for particular offices."
Please read the whole section: "use lower case for words such as president, king, and emperor (De Gaulle was a French president; Louis XVI was a French king; Three prime ministers attended the conference)." So only when a title is unique (a title which can only be held by one person at a time) or when it is immediately in front of the name, is it capitalized. Arsenikk (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't say "currently", instead say "as of [year]". - searching and fixing
  • 'BWI Airport' needs to be de-acronymized, although the full name is not necessarily necessary.
  • What is 'BRAC'? - fixed
  • Areas, such as sq mi, need to be converted to km2. {{convert}} makes this easy.
  • If you are going to include the list of board members, I would encourage a table, which would make it much easier to read. - done
  • There is a link to 'Metrobus', which is a disambiguation page. - done
  • There is one recursive link to 'WMATA'. - done
Comments related to content and scope
  • The lead is far too short, and doesn't summarize the article. It should perhaps be three full paragraphs (or so) and summarize all major aspects of the article. As a rule of thumb (but not a strict rule), try to include key information from all main sections. - done
  • The "services" is very short. I would expect a comprehensive summary of the operations of both systems. There is hardly any information at all here, it even fails to mention "key facts" such as network length, no. of stations, no. of lines (metro and bus), etc. I would also like to see a short summary of the police force. Just because there are sub-articles is not an excuse to write near-to-nothing about what is covered in the sub-article. - done
  • I would expect a section on fares.
The fare structure is very complicated and changed three times in 2010. I have added sentences that explain that it varies with time of day and distance.
  • The history section jumps straight from 1973 to 2004. Was there nothing of importance which happened then? Surely the agency, among other things, built the rapid transit and must also have somehow developed the bus system. Even though the bulk of history of the metro can lay within that article, the summary of the activities must be made in this article. - trying to expand
  • The mentioning of the parking lot issues is fine, but it seems disproportionate to the rest of the article. Personally I now usually place the history section late in the article, so the system can be presented before the history section, as it eases reader understanding. Simiarly, there should be a mentioning of SmarTrip in the services section. - cut way back and moved out of history
  • Why is there only mention of the directors from 2006 and onwards in the history, while older directors are listed under governance? A bit confusing for readers. - moved to history
  • I find it odd that the future of the metro network is discussed, while the current and past is not. - past is in history
  • I would expect the history of leadership to be interwoven into the history section, so it could be understood in relations to the operational history of the agency. - done
  • I would have said there is too much about current leadership, although I will with doubt let it pass. It would be nice if it was somehow made slightly compact, as Wikipedia in general should not be a listing of board members and other management positions in companies and agencies.
  • All US-formatted dates need a comma or period after the year.
Referencing
  • Not all parts of the article are referenced.
  • Please avoid page numbers after inline references. Almost all readers don't want to check the references, and while technically possible, such referencing inhibits the readability. If you want to refer to specific pages, you can use a "bibliography" section at the end or similar.
I agree that we want to be reader friendly, but Citing sources says, "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited. For example, in the case of a book, specify the page number(s). " So, the question is whether to use the common named source with individual page numbers or create a separate footnote for each page that is cited. Do you have a preference?
  • External links check out good
  • Ref four (Virginia v. Tennessee) makes a statement and then refers in part to a WP article and in part to a primary source. This needs to be cited from a secondary source. - fixed
  • Ref 18 is oddly formated (probably some sort of typo) - line break in source prevented it from displaying correctly.
  • Ref 20 lacks accessdate, as do a few other refs - all references to the internet have access dates. All references to hard copy sources do not.
  • Ref 23 (adding another color) needs a publisher or author - removed
  • It would be better if the WMATA Compact was under "bibliography" or similar, and simply referred to that.
Please explain your idea.
Other comments
  • Image licenses check out good. However, avoid forcing image sizes. See WP:IMGSIZE; note that this is policy, not just a guideline.
  • Feel free to add more image [not a GA criteria, just advice].

I am placing the article on hold. I have asked for quite some changes, so we'll just see how it develops. Don't hesitate to ask if there is anything you're wondering about. Arsenikk (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful review. I am starting to work on your items, but I am also working on another GA review as well. Racepacket (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Although work has progressed, the nominator has now been indefinitely blocked, so I am failing the article. Should article work be taken up by another author, I would encourage the task-list to be completed before a renomination. Arsenikk (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:|


|}}

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    {{subst:#if:The prose is fine|The prose is fine|}}
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    {{subst:#if:While the main body is almost entirely about the organisational structure - there is very little such information in the lead. There look to be some minor layout issues as well which I will try and fix now.|While the main body is almost entirely about the organisational structure - there is very little such information in the lead. There look to be some minor layout issues as well which I will try and fix now.|}}
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    C. No original research:
    {{subst:#if:I do want to have a check over some of the sources myself. Now done.|I do want to have a check over some of the sources myself. Now done.|}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    {{subst:#if:No comparisons are made with the structure of urban transport organisations - I would be interested in how the structure of the urban transportation in Washington DC compares to New York, and ideally cities like London and Singapore. I would still be interested in more on this but I don't think the request is reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)|No comparisons are made with the structure of urban transport organisations - I would be interested in how the structure of the urban transportation in Washington DC compares to New York, and ideally cities like London and Singapore. I would still be interested in more on this but I don't think the request is reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)|}}
    B. Focused:
    {{subst:#if:There is a huge amount of coverage on the company structure, prehaps this could be trimmed and more could be added on the trains and bus services themselves. Like for example how frequent they are. I would also say that the history section needs more content between the 1970's and 1990's. I also think there is too much coverage of the recent stuff, the financial crisis stuff is overdone, as is the content on the political wrangling over the airport name.|There is a huge amount of coverage on the company structure, prehaps this could be trimmed and more could be added on the trains and bus services themselves. Like for example how frequent they are. I would also say that the history section needs more content between the 1970's and 1990's. I also think there is too much coverage of the recent stuff, the financial crisis stuff is overdone, as is the content on the political wrangling over the airport name.|}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    {{subst:#if:There is very little criticism in the article, I would have thought there would be some issues with how the metro system in Washington DC operates. Personally I found there to be not really enough trains outside of peak hours - for example only one service on each line every 15 minutes to the airport, and there are decent areas of the city centre without a nearby metro station (e.g. the Washington monument). Additionally pointing out that its the least subsidised metro in the US (which I believe is true) would be good too. Also somebody must have complained about the Silver line not being built as an express service as they have in London, Paris, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Delhi etc. etc.|There is very little criticism in the article, I would have thought there would be some issues with how the metro system in Washington DC operates. Personally I found there to be not really enough trains outside of peak hours - for example only one service on each line every 15 minutes to the airport, and there are decent areas of the city centre without a nearby metro station (e.g. the Washington monument). Additionally pointing out that its the least subsidised metro in the US (which I believe is true) would be good too. Also somebody must have complained about the Silver line not being built as an express service as they have in London, Paris, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Delhi etc. etc.|}}
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:||}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:Great :)|Great :)|}}

I appreciate your comments about scope and focus. The intended scope was to cover the details of train service in Washington Metro, the buses in Metrobus (Washington, D.C.), the paratransit in MetroAccess, and so on, but to also have an overarching article covering the government agency which is notable for its funding struggles and governance challenges. I will make whatever changes you think are necessary, but I hope that criticism of the trains, buses, and paratransit would be placed in their respective articles. For example, there was a notable, multi-year dispute over a battle with Congress over whether to re-sign the rail system for $400,000 after Congress renamed the local airport. That issue is primarily covered in the article on the National Airport station. If necessary, we could copy some of the material from the daughter articles back into this article.

I will start researching the other major systems. As for subsidy, I am not sure how to measure that. Northern Virginia had no independent taxing authority, so they had the Virginia General assembly approve a 3 cent/gallon additinal gasoline sales tax. That tax funds a Northern Virginia Transportation Commission which makes an annual contribution to Metro. The tolls on the Dulles Toll Road have been raised $1 per trip to help fund the Silver Line. The amount of money therefore depends on the actual tolls and gas sales during the year. The NYC subway is subsidized by the bridge and tunnel tolls.

I will get to work and see what I can find in the literature. Racepacket (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly some criticism of the structure of the organisation would be appropriate, as well as any key bits of criticism for the sub-services. Those sections do need some more expansion. While the subsidy may not be fixed, you should be able to find some figures for an individual year - I doubt it varies that much and a ballpark figure adds a lot of value. With regards to the airport renaming, I think its reasonable to include, but I just think the content could do with trimming. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Its also worth pointing out that criticism of the organisational structure would be valid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Racepacket as your RFC has gone to Arbcom, and as I wish to get involved with that so that it isn't just one group of people making statements I'm not sure what to do with this review. Racepacket if you want to withdraw the review, and re-nominate later that's fine with me, and if you want me to review it later then drop me a note on my talk page.
Otherwise if your happy for me to continue I'm OK with that, and I'll do my best to be impartial, if I feel I am unable to do so I'll ask for a second opinion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I am fine with you continuing. Thank you for asking. Racepacket (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added a safety section and expanded the rail, bus and funding sections. What do you think? Racepacket (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Racepacket/WMATA looks much better. The lead still needs expanding a little, and I want to check some of the sources out, but if you expand the lead a little more then the ball will be very firmly in my court to check the sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I have expanded the lead at your suggestion. Racepacket (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, lets get those changes into the live article, and then I'll look at the sources as best I can - this should be passing in the next few days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I see its in the article now. Great :). I'll pass it formally over the easter weekend after looking at the sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Passed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)