Wikipedia:Peer review/Rapid transit/archive1

Rapid transit

This article is very comprehensive. It definitely needs some work before it passes WP:FAC. Is anything missing? Is there any trivial details that need to go? I've also asked the Trains WikiProject to peer review the article. That page can be found Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review/Rapid transit. Thanks in advance to everyone who comments. -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Selmo ^(talk) 22:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather obviously, the {{fact}}(s) need citations. The lead could be bolstered by a bit of expansion. The "history" section has a lot of 1-sentence paragraphs that should be merged/expanded. Also suggest some copyediting and clarifying (mouse over to see suggestions):

Many of these regional railways were first built to operate in one direction from a city centre terminus, but some have been extended across the city centre, sometimes running in tunnels. By making multiple stops in the city, they can offer suburban passengers a choice of stations and also provide useful transportation within the city. A notable example is the Paris RER system, where (in co-operation with the city's transit authority) several pairs of existing suburban lines running in opposite directions from the city have been extended in tunnel to join up and form new through routes across the city. They are provided with frequent service and, within the city, the same fares as the Métro are charged, providing an integrated network. In Tokyo and Osaka, Japan private companies operate the world's most extensive suburban railways, each with their own fare system that integrates with the entire system. In German-speaking countries, the Paris style system is called an S-Bahn Italian-speaking countries such a system is called Linea S or Treno Suburbano, where as in Spain it is referred to as Cercanías. AZ _t 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced statements can easily be taken care of via Google search and source checking. I have also begun to incorporate the suggestions into the article. Thanks for your review. -- Selmo ^(talk) 23:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the article does not need a greater number of images, but it does need a greater diversity of images, such as a picture of the inside of a rail car (with people in it), a monorail/elevated train, etc. Right now the pictures seem too similar. A panning image of a train would also be a good image towards the top. Maybe later tonight I will look for featured images of rapid transit. Cacophony 01:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not too long ago, I saw a photo of a TTC subway car with passengers inside on Flickr. Will add. -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no passengers inside. Probably a tad more polite anyway (most people don't like being published on the internet). -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if streetcars are what you want, but this photo of a girl on a streetcar in Austria is featured on English Wikipedia and on Commons. Fg2 05:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Extent section very confusing. Also all references to specific railways was a bit distracting. I think mentioning the most notable rapid transit systems with a minor description in its own section, then keeping the rest of the article very general would be the best way to deal with this. Also shouldn't the LA system be mentioned somewhere. I would like to work on this article. Ratherhaveaheart 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, be bold and work on it! This is a wiki. Thanks for your suggestions -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sections need to be rewritten. The content is good, but it isn't in the right order.

General: One of the top two pictures should be of an elevated or other overground line, since it could fool a brief reader that the article was solely about undergrouds. And the entire article needs subsections (i.e. ===s). There are a lot of text blocks right now that are long and hard to read.
Indroduction: According to List of rapid transit systems#Earliest Rapid Transit Systems the Istanbul rapid transit was fourth, not second. Check it out (I'm not saying you'r wrong, but both can't be right). Also, I feel that the #2 and #1 in the US, tunneling techniques and naming conventions should be dropped and instead mention the funtions of the rapid transit.
Characteristics and nomenclature should be split in two distinct definitions, one that defines a rapid transit, and one that mentions the three major types (underground, on-ground and elevated). The naming confusion should somehow be seperated in its own paragraph at the end. If you look at the List of rapid transit systems you see that most rapid transits are called metro in Europe, and this section might want to mention that. And please, do something with the heading title.
Extent needs to be restructured with a general note about the main system types, followed by seperate paragraphs on different strategies, with the examples following the theory. At the moment it is cluttery.
Importance, functions, and station design has a seperate paragraph for Canada and one for the US. Though this is ok in itself, I feel that there needs to be more work on Asian and European, and not at least third-world trapid transits. Though we both may be biased to Vancouver, mentioning that the new SkyTrain lines will be finished in 2009 in unessesary :P. IMO when listing up lots of cities that have a certain criteria, wikilink to the rapid transit, not the city itself.
Technology should be expanded. Should mention something on automation vs. manrun.
History I agree, it should be a seperate article, and substancially expanded, especially the section after 1900. A summary should be included in this article though.
Similarities to light rail There should be a wikilink to Light rail here, maybe even as a main template. Arsenikk 18:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Selmo ^(talk) 22:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved around some stuff and rewritten other stuff in the article. Personally I feel it's got better structure now, but I've modified to much to be much objective in the matter any more. The history section is still a mess, and should become a seperate article. Futhermore, subway station architecture is a really interesting and important matter that could cover many paragraphs, and should too. Some research has to be done on the matter though. Otherwise I feel that something has to be done with the introduction. As it stands now it's IMO cluttery and concerned with trivia instead of main topics. My main concern is that the sentence about tunneling techniques is far to technical for an overview, and that there is not enough about the role of the rapid transit in the city. Otherwise there have to be more citations. Still, it's beginning to look good :) Arsenikk 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]