Wikipedia:Featured article review/Manila Metro Rail Transit System/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Manila Metro Rail Transit System[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Manila Metro Rail Transit System (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Featured article candidates/Manila Metro Rail Transit System
Featured article review/Manila Metro Rail Transit System/archive1
Toolbox
Notified: Sky Harbor, WikiProject Trains

I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not currently meet criteria, especially regarding referencing. This article has been a featured article since 2006 and was featured on the main page. However, 7 years later I do not feel as if this article meets the current criteria. It has several unreferenced sections (ex. Station facilities, amenities, and services) and/or poorly referenced sections (ex. Fares and Ticketing) and I'd like to hear what the community thinks. I am pinging the original nominator, Sky Harbor to get his/her opinion too. Sportsguy17 (TC) 21:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D I agree that this article no longer meets the FA criteria, and would need quite a lot of work to regain this status. My comments are:

  • The first sentence is really confusing: is this article about one line of a system, or the entire system? (which is what the title of the article indicates it should cover). This confusion carries across into the body of the article, and it's not really clear what's going on.
  • Referencing is clearly sub-standard and well below B-class standard, much less that which is expected in an FA
  • The history section is much too short
  • The tables of first and last services violate WP:NOTTIMETABLE
  • The value of the table of "Incidents and accidents" seems questionable given that many of the incidents described are pretty minor and the kind of thing which routinely effect major public transport systems (eg, outages due to random accidents and suicide attempts) Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    I will be away the next 3 days without great internet, so I may not be able to participate for a few days. Anyway, I agree with Nick-D and it's sad to see such long-term FA's be left behind with the ever increasing standards. It may be a longshot, byt someone ought to make a featured article retention team, a group of editors whose goal is to make sure that older FA's aren't left unmaintained. Thanks for the comments thus far. Sportsguy17 (TC) 04:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not FA quality - Disorganised, poorly laid out, full of irrelevant information (e.g. train schedules), contradictory (e.g. said to be a safe system, but immediately lists a whole load of incidents!). At best a "B" on the quality scale, as it would fail GA review. Bhtpbank (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Agreed. There are entire sections without references. For example "Station facilities, amenities, and services", with two subsections, hasn't even a single reference. Not even GA-class. Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, everybody, and happy holidays. I was informed of this nomination, and allow me to clarify a few things before we work to address this article.

  • First, the MRT system is composed of only one line, so it would be natural that the line and the system are construed to be one and the same thing.
  • How is the history section too "short"? The system is only fifteen years old, and any history before then is already covered in the Manila Light Rail Transit System article (an unfortunate symptom of the urban planning situation in the Philippines), so I don't think there's any more that can be added short of an intensive search for offline materials regarding the project.

This will be a good starting point to bring this article back to FA quality, and I will be glad to answer your questions as best as I can. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You can try, SkyHarbor. But it needs a ton of work for it to be back to FA status. What about sections that are completely unreferenced? It fails #1c on WP:WIAFA, the biggest, most important criteria of all. Sorry, but its not FA status, let alone GA status. It is likely B or C class. You can make improvements, but it will likely get delisted as a FA, since there is so much work to be done. It will take a lot for it to be a FA once more. Sportsguy17 (TC) 18:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, let's see. The impossible can be done, can't it? ;)
In the meantime, I'm beginning to compile a list of sources which can be used for the article, and let's see where we can go from there. However, I would also like to see some effort coming from those who participated in this review to help the article out, since you're also concerned about article quality, rather than just talking about the demerits of the article in question. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: I started work on the history section, and work will continue as more sources as found. I also hope to begin sourcing the station amenities section in the next day or so: my progress right now is dependent on how much school work I have to do (as I am doing this while keeping my graduation, which is in two months, in mind). --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sky Harbor, how is the work going? Any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Hi, Nikkimaria. I've been swamped with finals (which are next week), so I've been unable to do significant work on the article. However, I have around 30 tabs open on one of my browser windows, largely covering history and fare increases (I'm trying to figure out when exactly the MRT decided to lower fares from P40 to P15, to no avail). I intend to continue work on the article after my exams through March, as I will have nothing else to do save waiting for graduation at the end of next month. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
      • UPDATE: I've begun working on the article again, first with fixing references and doing some work in the plans section. Depending on the reliability of the sources (and whether or not I will have to rely on offline copies of newspaper articles to complete them), I hope to finish work on fixing all the references by the week should things go well. --Sky Harbor (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include prose, referencing, comprehensiveness and MOS compliance. While some work was completed during the review phase, progress appears to have stalled over the last few weeks. Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sportsguy17, User:Nick-D, User:Bhtpbank, User:Epicgenius, User:Sky_Harbor - Does anyone have any updated comments on the article? It looks like there has been quite a bit of work during the FAR process, but it would be nice to get some thoughts on what still needs to be done, or if the article is ready to be kept. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I still see several unreferenced sections. The stations and rolling stock sections are very poorly sourced or have no sources whatever, so it fails criterion #1c and #1a isn't fully met either. That must be addressed in order for this to remain a FA. Sportsguy17 (TC) 13:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The "Operating Schedule" section is unreferenced as well, and I am wondering whether it falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I decided to remove that section, and whatever salvageable data from it can be merged into the network section. That section was quite problematic, if you ask me, especially given the MRT's 'experiments' with longer operating hours. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sportsguy17, User:Nick-D, User:Bhtpbank, User:Epicgenius, User:Sky_Harbor, further thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No concerns, as far as I can see. Of course, one may need to look over it yet again, as there may be some more errors that still stand. Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The "stations, facilities, and amenities" section still has no sources, so as far as I'm concerned, this still is yet to meet FA status. I haven't gotten to look over all of the sections, but that section alone gives me reason to have lingering concerns. Sportsguy17 (TC) 19:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)