Talk:GO Transit

GO Transit has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology 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.
Review: February 1, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Canada: Ontario / Toronto Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as High-importance).

Trains: Passenger trains Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 50, 2014

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

Buses Low‑importance

	Buses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses 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.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

Archive 1 (May 2005 - July 2013)

GA Status

I think this article could make it to Good Article status with some work. Any ideas on what needs to be addressed to get it there? --Natural R_X 21:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated it, see above. --Natural R_X 14:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it needs a lot of work. For starters the current ridership numbers and the future projections do not align. The information for future projections is clearly out of date. There also seems to be a lot of trivial information. For example, the size of the sections on police and incidents are disproportionate to more relevant sections. There is no real description of the infrastructure. KirksKeyKard (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GA? does not require perfection. It requires being well written, verifiable, broad in coverage, neutral, stable and illustrated. Ridership numbers are hard to consistently and completely come by; I have emailed GO asking for it but they have pointed me to filing an FOI request. Nonetheless I'm trying to improve it and done the best I can with verified sources for now. Proportion between incidents/security and information in general is sufficient for the broad GA requirement, weight can be honed before going for WP:FA status. As for infrastructure, can you elaborate? I'm open to improving it with your input. --Natural R_X 16:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take my comments as being definitive, I was expressing a view. Also, I would not consider myself qualified to perform the assessment you as seeking. I would suggest taking a look at similar articles for other transit operators and see whether they have sections that this article does not. It simply serves as a comparison, and might give some ideas as to where this article can be improved and to align with similar articles. KirksKeyKard (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa Go Stations - DRT Connecting Buses

Hi,

I have updated the Pickering GO Station to update the recent bus schedule changes that happened as of May 4, 2015 from the DRT schedules. But the Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa stations still need work. I can update the articles for Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa at a later date if needed, but if anyone wants to do it before me, please be my guest! Hope you understand and definitely blame DRT's route changes for why I'm tagging the DRT listings for these GO Stations.

Sincerely, Tibbydibby (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Station naming convention

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Canadian stations) for details. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on GO Transit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 14:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm MrWooHoo. I'd like to quickly explain how I'll be reviewing this article. I will do a general review (checking the criteria), then doing an in-depth prose and source review. Thanks! MrWooHoo (T • C) 14:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig shows that this article is 47% of the same content as the WP article. Please fix any copyright violations ASAP or correct me if I'm wrong.

Many of the items picked up in the link provided are proper names/titles (Ontario Minister of Transportation and Communications, Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area), names in combination with years ("in the 1970s and 1980s") or items with limited variability for description ("the introduction of the Georgetown...line in 1974, and the Richmond Hill line in 1978"; "concourse at Union Station was built"). I made a couple changes, but otherwise do not see copyvio concerns given what I have described. --Natural R_X 17:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See prose review below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See prose review below.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Nothing that's uncited.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See source review below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything is cited.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Coverage seems good for a GA article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Focus is on point.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No obvious biases.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No consistent vandalism found in logs.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Copyright statuses all seem right, however I have a question about the Go Logo picture. The rationale for fair use is that it doesn't cross the threshold of originality, however I feel like GO may have trademarked this logo. If not, you can probably keep the current fair use rationale, but otherwise I would suggest Template:Non-free use rationale 2 and Template:Non-free logo.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions and images are good.
	7. Overall assessment.	See above comment and below prose/source reviews.

Prose Review

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use Y or Done If the change was only partially done use Y, and N or Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

"Improvements include new roof and glass atrium" - Add "a" before new.

Done

"covering the tracks platforms" - tracks', not track's

"tracks" was removed entirely, sentence was changed to now read: "Improvements include a new roof and glass atrium covering the platforms and railway tracks, [listing other improvements]..."

"They include amenities such as elevators, washrooms, parking, pay phones, ticket vending machines, ticket sale kiosks and automated teller machines. " - Make sure throughout the article that you either always use the serial comma (the comma before and), or just don't use it.

Done

"Fares on the network are based a zone tariff set " - Add on before "a".

Done

"The Presto system allows passengers to load a re-loadable card " - Remove the hyphen.

Done

Source Review

Reference 65 is dead, so I would fix it for preparation for FA.

I successfully loaded the source, please confirm you are referring to this source.

Nominator's comment on logo concerns by the reviewer

File:GO_Transit_logo.svg is indeed a trademarked logo. However, I think it has been tagged appropriately and is still eligible for use on Commons. I still believe the threshold of originality rationale has not been met by this logo. Furthermore, {{trademark}} has also been added to the page, alerting users that despite not having copyright status, it may be subject to other restrictions. I believe this is in line with other logos and guidance on the Commons. --Natural R_X 15:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Natural RX: All concerns have been addressed, the article now passes GA criteria. Congratulations! MrWooHoo (T • C) 03:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MrWooHoo: thank you for your review sir! Your review format is great. --Natural R_X 15:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GO Green

There is an ongoing discussion on what the "new" primary shade of green used by GO actually is. I invite additional input. --Natural R_X 20:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in GO Transit

Many smaller articles in GO Transit compared to many articles across Wikipedia consist of issues.

For example, lack of citations or citations to unreliable sources, poor wording/excessive information, content in improper sections, or information that may be outdated false. I think some changes and/or template notices should be placed across some pages... Thoughts? Toronto501 (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]