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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Fredddie (talk · contribs) 16:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Many prose issues that need to be worked out. I'll ask someone else from the Trains Project, but I have doubts that the Schedules section is encyclopedic. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Numerous facts and figures are uncited. The entire station list section is uncited!
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    There was one opinion that really stuck out at me. It was telling the reader that buying the pass that gave access to multiple modes of transport was the best value. It's not our job to say that; we can't assume that every person who rides Tri-Rail is interested in riding the buses as well.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Personally, I would avoid galleries like the plague, but to each their own.
  7. Overall:
    There are too many issues to pass the article at this time. –Fredddie 16:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)