As I was translating this article into French, I was quite surprised to see it was a featured article whereas it isn't verifiable (it almost never gives sources for precise facts, whereas this is part of the FA criteria). benji 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Article still has the quality of a FA, but it does need references. I have added some, but more are needed. Also, there is red link in the article which is not acceptable Unigauge project. If these issues are tackled, it can still be an FA.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Since when are red links unacceptable? They're an integral part of how Wikipedia works since they show us what articles we need to write. — Brian (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Red links are not an FA criteria concern and won't impact the article's status. Marskell 05:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Concerns have been raised for inordinate amounts of redlinks (Someone commented about that about a small cluster of them in a FAC of mines recently, but are not a criterion per se. THey do be one for Featured lists, though.Circeus 18:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not too difficult to put in the citations. At the time of nomination inline citations were not a criteria. A 2 hr job should satisfy your concerns. --Nichalp 07:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
In addition to significant citation needs:
WP:DASH attention needed throughout (mostly incorrect use of ndash where mdash is needed, but there may be other problems).
Templates placed incorrectly at ends of sections (see WP:GTL).
Suggested FA criteria concerns are verifiability and formatting.Joelito (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:DASH — attended to. However, one guidance is needed. In case of railway lines (mentioning more than two stations) what dash to be used? em or endash? In the article, endash has been used in such instances.
Besides the above-mentioned changes, inline citations are being added. Here are the changes done in last two days. Some sections now have good inline citations (eg Signalling systems, Accommodation classes, Locomotives, Production units) while some are deficient. Further works will be done soon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:DASH has been extensively reworked by Tony1 and others; have a new look at WP:MOS to see if it answers your questions. I think it's an endash, but not sure. Wiki preference is for no spaces on emdashes, if you can fix those. Can the WP:LEAD be expanded to summarize the entire article? I'm finding a lot of sentences with no spaces between them or after the ref; hard to catch all of them. I'm also finding no spaces after commas, and inconsistent dates (16th April rather than April 16 and 22nd December 1851 rather than December 221851). I need to be convinced that the Indian Railways Fan Club is a reliable source; it appears to be a maillist. What makes it reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
IRFCA started off as a mailing list, and then developed into a mini-encyclopedia on Indian railways of sorts. Content on the site is taken from various sources (list of documents and sources are available here: http://www.irfca.org/docs/index.htm). Statistics and other figures have been sourced from reports published by Indian Railways or the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. The site is notable (see the wikipedia|article and citations in Indian publications). It would fall under a reliable source as 1. authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. 2. Material on the site are peer reviewed by members of the mailing community. As per WP:RS, peer reviewed material by experts in the field can be considered to be reliable. =Nichalp«Talk»= 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Inline citations have been added since "update 2". Dates have been fixed, lead has been expanded to summarize the article. WP:MOS has been maintained. Please see.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This is close to Keep, but there are still some issues. I don't think the endashes on different train lines (see Private railways section) should be spaced. The article seems undercategorized. And there are still some copyedit issues, samples:
If a seat is not available, then the ticket is given a wait listed number; else the ticket is confirmed, and a berth number is printed on the ticket. A person receiving a wait listed ticket will have to wait until there are enough cancellations to enable him to move up the list and obtain a confirmed ticket. If his ticket is not confirmed on the day of departure, he may not board the train.
He? I can't figure out what this is saying, and it seems like a how-to manual.
Discounted tickets are available for senior citizens (above sixty years) and for various other passengers ... various other is redundant.
...at Lucknow is the R & D wing ... not everyone knows what R & D is.
Maybe an independent person can run through the prose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
endash issue fixed. Categorization is probably ok now.
Independent editors are having a look, and concerns are being raised in the article talk page. Hopefully, copyediting issues will be solved shortly. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Closing: I'm off to India myself in two days, so maybe I'll do some original research on the train system :). I want to clear some of these old ones out of here, so I think we can call this default keep at the moment. Significant work since nom and I trust people will keep at the little stuff. Marskell 17:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.