Talk:North–South Commuter Railway/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 00:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'll be reviewing this article. It's a fairly lengthy one, so it may take a day or two. Comments to come shortly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
~~A few issues identified.~~ Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All taken care of. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
~~A number of issues need to be fixed.~~ Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All have been resolved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Looks good to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Sources generally look good from a quick review. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
~~Extensively cited throughout, nothing is lacking citations that needs them.~~ Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~I spoke too soon, there are a few places that need citations.~~ Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
The only matches I found on Earwig were insignificant and do not worry me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Thorough coverage of the topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
I do not see any issues here, it stays focused. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Generally maintains a neutral encyclopedic tone throughout. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Article history since November shows steady improvement, no issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
All images are either public domain, or licensed with a compatible CC license. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
~~One caption has a grammar error: "Abandoned NorthRail columns in Malolos, Bulacan that has since been demolished." Should be "...that have since been demolished".~~ Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

General comments

I see issues with overlinking. Commuter rail is linked at least 3 times, and I see Tarlac City linked twice in the same paragraph. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general, try to avoid 1 sentence paragraphs where possible, try to move such sentences into nearby paragraphs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consider moving the history section ahead of the route section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

Lots of citations in the lead. I am not nearly as militant as most GAN reviewers about these, but just the same you should remove citations from the lead where it makes sense to do so. Anything that isn't a quote being attributed or something that might be disputed does not need a citation when it's in the lead section.
"the railway will be a transportation backbone of the region." comes across as editorializing to me, I recommend rephrasing this in a more neutral manner.
"the project has been repetitively halted" change to "the project has been repeatedly halted".

Route

Be consistent about how you handle units. I see in the same paragraph "91 km (57 mi)" and "53 kilometres (33 mi)". Stick with one way of handling units (either spelling out the metric unit, or abbreviating it like the U.S. customary unit).
Link "PNR Metro Commuter Line" as this is the first mention of it in the body.
"The table below shows the proposed train operation schedule and stations for the system." this sentence is not necessary, the table can stand by itself. The references can be incorporated into the table as well.
The services section says there are three services, but you present four services here. This needs to be clarified, is subway through service something separate or no?
Consider making the table collapsible for the benefit of readers, as it is quite large. This can easily be done in table settings in visual editor. It is fine if you have the table default to open, but making it collapsible can help with navigating the article.
"The 2014 JICA study" The what? This is why you should have the history section before the route section, right now this is a non sequitur.
"PNR South Long Haul Project" The word project should be included in the wikilink here, instead of being piped out.
In the services subsection, make sure not to fall afoul of MOS:TODAY. Use statements like "As of January 2022, its final name is yet to be determined."

History

When was PNR founded? You mention predecessors, but it is not explicitly stated when PNR came into existence.
"The Metro Manila Commuter Service started on April 6, 1970, which started at Manila North Harbor and ended in Biñan, Laguna." Reword one of the two uses of "started" here to a synonym to be less repetitive.
"After numerous expansions, the commuter service enjoyed thousands of daily riders" Seems strange to me to use the word "enjoyed" to describe an inanimate commuter rail system.
"These would not materialize as the government shifted its focus to road-based infrastructure." This needs a citation.
"Since then, railway services have been mostly confined to the south, with the contemporary Metro Commuter Line being predominantly aligned to the South Main Line." This also needs a citation.
"The project was estimated to cost around US$500 million, and the funding was to be covered by a US$400 million by the" Looks like you are missing the word "loan" after "US$400 million".
"According to Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas, the Chinese were open to reconfiguring the project, and that he was meeting with his Chinese counterpart in a month's time" When did he make this statement, and what was the outcome of the meeting?
"In November 2017, DOTr, BCDA, and North Luzon Railways reached an out-of-court settlement with Sinomach, resolving the five-year dispute." Merge this with the previous paragraph to avoid a one sentence paragraph.
I mentioned this earlier, but there's overlinking going on. Standard gauge is linked too many times, it should be linked only once in the body. Same with narrow gauge.
"This covers the construction of the railway" Use past tense here.
"Eleven firms from various ADB member countries" What are ADB member countries? This acronym is not used at all before this.
"PNR Clark 1 is expected to start partial operations in 2021, while full operations are expected in the second quarter of 2024." This needs an update, as we are in 2022 now.
"Its initial route, the Malolos-Valenzuela section, is expected to start operations by December 2021." Same deal as just above here.

Infrastructure

"The FTI station in particular is connected to the Taguig Integrated Terminal Exchange." This needs a citation.
"successor to the Tokyu Car Corporation that has provided rolling stock to the Philippines" Remove the word "has".
"The first batch of the commuter trains arrived on November 21, 2021. A mock-up model of the commuter train was revealed to the public on June 28, 2021, and was delivered to the Philippines from Japan in August 2021. The trainsets have been designated as the EM10000 class in October 2021." This is out of order. The first sentence here about trains arriving in November 2021 should be at the end, after the naming in October 2021.
"With the exception of wheelchair spaces, the commuter trains will have a capacity of 2,242 passengers, which is more than the normal capacity of the rolling stock of the existing LRT Line 1, LRT Line 2, MRT Line 3, and the PNR Metro Commuter Line. The express trains, on the other hand, will have a capacity of 392 passengers." This needs citations.
In the table here, link the word pantograph to Pantograph (transport), as it is an uncommon term for those not familiar with electric trains.
In external links, get rid of the Facebook link per WP:ELNO. A much better link would be [1], but this would actually be better in the infobox under the website parameter. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

I am placing the article on hold, pending responses to my comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response

@Trainsandotherthings: Hey! Thanks for opening the review. I'll do my best to address the comments and concerns raised during the initial review. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 06:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

I see issues with overlinking. Commuter rail is linked at least 3 times, and I see Tarlac City linked twice in the same paragraph. - Done: Removed duplicated links
In general, try to avoid 1 sentence paragraphs where possible, try to move such sentences into nearby paragraphs. - Done: Removed/merged one sentence paragraphs.
Consider moving the history section ahead of the route section. - Done

Lead and infobox

Lots of citations in the lead. I am not nearly as militant as most GAN reviewers about these, but just the same you should remove citations from the lead where it makes sense to do so. Anything that isn't a quote being attributed or something that might be disputed does not need a citation when it's in the lead section - Done: reduced citations
"the railway will be a transportation backbone of the region." comes across as editorializing to me, I recommend rephrasing this in a more neutral manner. - Not sure how to proceed with this one, though I did modify the sentence and added a source.
"the project has been repetitively halted" change to "the project has been repeatedly halted". - Done

Route

Be consistent about how you handle units. I see in the same paragraph "91 km (57 mi)" and "53 kilometres (33 mi)". Stick with one way of handling units (either spelling out the metric unit, or abbreviating it like the U.S. customary unit). - Done
Link "PNR Metro Commuter Line" as this is the first mention of it in the body. - Done
"The table below shows the proposed train operation schedule and stations for the system." this sentence is not necessary, the table can stand by itself. The references can be incorporated into the table as well. - Done
The services section says there are three services, but you present four services here. This needs to be clarified, is subway through service something separate or no? - Sorry, the through service is considered the fourth service. Modified services section instead
Consider making the table collapsible for the benefit of readers, as it is quite large. This can easily be done in table settings in visual editor. It is fine if you have the table default to open, but making it collapsible can help with navigating the article. - Done
"The 2014 JICA study" The what? This is why you should have the history section before the route section, right now this is a non sequitur. - Done: replaced "2014 JICA study" with the name it uses in the article (Metro Manila Dream Plan)
"PNR South Long Haul Project" The word project should be included in the wikilink here, instead of being piped out. - Done
In the services subsection, make sure not to fall afoul of MOS:TODAY. Use statements like "As of January 2022, its final name is yet to be determined." - Done

History

When was PNR founded? You mention predecessors, but it is not explicitly stated when PNR came into existence. - Done: expanded that section to include the PNR's predecessors and the PNR's founding date
"The Metro Manila Commuter Service started on April 6, 1970, which started at Manila North Harbor and ended in Biñan, Laguna." Reword one of the two uses of "started" here to a synonym to be less repetitive. - Done
"After numerous expansions, the commuter service enjoyed thousands of daily riders" Seems strange to me to use the word "enjoyed" to describe an inanimate commuter rail system. - Done: replaced "enjoyed" with "served"
"These would not materialize as the government shifted its focus to road-based infrastructure." This needs a citation. - removed this instead, since I have not managed to find reliable sources mentioning this.
"Since then, railway services have been mostly confined to the south, with the contemporary Metro Commuter Line being predominantly aligned to the South Main Line." This also needs a citation. - Done
"The project was estimated to cost around US$500 million, and the funding was to be covered by a US$400 million by the" Looks like you are missing the word "loan" after "US$400 million". - Done
"According to Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas, the Chinese were open to reconfiguring the project, and that he was meeting with his Chinese counterpart in a month's time" When did he make this statement, and what was the outcome of the meeting? - Rephrased the sentence to place less emphasis on the meeting (since there seem to be no followup articles regarding this) and more on the attempt to restart the project (which resulted in the project's final cancellation).
"In November 2017, DOTr, BCDA, and North Luzon Railways reached an out-of-court settlement with Sinomach, resolving the five-year dispute." Merge this with the previous paragraph to avoid a one sentence paragraph. - Done
I mentioned this earlier, but there's overlinking going on. Standard gauge is linked too many times, it should be linked only once in the body. Same with narrow gauge. - Done
"This covers the construction of the railway" Use past tense here. - Not sure why I should use past tense since "this" pertains to Package 2. Modified sentence instead.
"Eleven firms from various ADB member countries" What are ADB member countries? This acronym is not used at all before this. - Clarified ADB. Done
"PNR Clark 1 is expected to start partial operations in 2021, while full operations are expected in the second quarter of 2024." This needs an update, as we are in 2022 now. - Done
"Its initial route, the Malolos-Valenzuela section, is expected to start operations by December 2021." Same deal as just above here. - Done

Infrastructure

"The FTI station in particular is connected to the Taguig Integrated Terminal Exchange." This needs a citation. - Done
"successor to the Tokyu Car Corporation that has provided rolling stock to the Philippines" Remove the word "has". - Done
"The first batch of the commuter trains arrived on November 21, 2021. A mock-up model of the commuter train was revealed to the public on June 28, 2021, and was delivered to the Philippines from Japan in August 2021. The trainsets have been designated as the EM10000 class in October 2021." This is out of order. The first sentence here about trains arriving in November 2021 should be at the end, after the naming in October 2021. - Done
"With the exception of wheelchair spaces, the commuter trains will have a capacity of 2,242 passengers, which is more than the normal capacity of the rolling stock of the existing LRT Line 1, LRT Line 2, MRT Line 3, and the PNR Metro Commuter Line. The express trains, on the other hand, will have a capacity of 392 passengers." This needs citations. - Done
In the table here, link the word pantograph to Pantograph (transport), as it is an uncommon term for those not familiar with electric trains. - Done
In external links, get rid of the Facebook link per WP:ELNO. A much better link would be [2], but this would actually be better in the infobox under the website parameter. Done

Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 06:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now, thanks for the quick responses. Congratulations, I'll promote this to GA shortly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]