Talk:Secunderabad Junction railway station

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Secunderabad Junction railway station article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

India: Telangana / Hyderabad / Railways High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Telangana (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hyderabad (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indian railways (assessed as High-importance).
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Trains: Stations / in India Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	April 28, 2019

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 WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indian railways.

Comments

Main problem with the article is an absolute lack of references. Read WP:RS and WP:REF for information about references on wikipedia. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassess: same grade. IRFCA, a fan club can not be considered a WP:RS. TOI, the Hindu, SC railway are examples of RS used in the article. The references are bare links and should be formatted using (for eg) {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} References 25, 26 in Commuter Rail are dangling in air. Sections like Station Layout, still lack a single ref. IMO, "Budget 2009-10" is an WP:UNDUE. There may be numerous budgets which may have mentioned the station, not needed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference valid

The references at the IRFCA are valid as they are refereed from different books of Indian railways.(please see:Books : History, railway descriptions(IRFCA)).So they(only references on it's history) can be considered as references.--Sharadbob^Talk_C 08:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The budget mean that what the station has got through it, as an information on it's future.What is going to happen in it's future and are the plans to develop the station.--Sharadbob^Talk_C 08:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)I agree that the Budget should not be involved in this page.--Sharadbob^Talk_C 17:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick assessment

I was asked to stop by and provide a rating onto this article today. My first thought is that there is a good amount of content and there are plenty of references to support the assertions made in the text. However, I agree with the copyedit tag that is currently present at the top of the article, and the majority of the references that are listed need to be formatted using citation templates, such as {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}, for consistency and to provide additional pointers to the works cited when their urls change in the future (at the very least, we need page titles for each of the blank links that are listed). If there were only a couple of them, I would have updated the citations myself, but I don't have enough time right now to plow through all of them. I've gone through the lead section with a quick copyedit to give an example of the kinds of updates I see that need to be made. I think this article is close to being GA level, and could get there or even up to FA level with a little more work. It is the copyedit and the formatting of the references that are my main reasons for putting this as C class right now rather than B class. After a full copyedit, this article would easily be a good candidate to appear as the selected article on Portal:Trains. Slambo (Speak) 16:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]