Talk:Chapel Hill Transit/GA
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have read through the article, and I have declined to approve it for GA status at this time. As a comparison I looked at the GA-article Montreal Metro (please note, that the Metro article lacks inline citations, and because of that may lose its GA status. I used it as a comparison for the general type of information that might be included.) Although it's a much larger system, I felt that it could serve as a guide as to what might belong in a transit system article. My comments are below:
1. Is it well written? Needs improvement
Although the most of the prose used by the article is fine, the flow needs a little bit of work. As it stands, there are an awful lot of short (1 or 2 sentence) paragraphs that make the article feel a little too choppy. I think the paragraph on Service Design also feels a little rough due to the number of short sentences being strung together.
Encyclopedia articles should generally maintain a formal tone. For the most part the article does, but there is a contraction in the section on the Shared Ride Feeder. That does need to be fixed.
Also be careful not to include information that could become inaccurate. Schedule information is not really that appropriate for an encyclopedia, and although pricing information might seem interesting, if it is included, it should be prefaced with "as of [date]", to remain accurate.
Finally, I'd include a little more information about the make-up of the transit system in the opening to the article. It's not specified that the system is entirely bus/van based until the section on the service design. Reading the article, I was a little curious about what types of vehicles were used from the begining.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Needs Improvement
This area needs some work. For GA status, the reviewers like to see everything cited through inline references. Athough the article has a few of those, there are a significant number of facts that look like they might have come from town's page. Without a citation, as a reviewer, I can't tell that they are not original research unless without reading all the sources provided.
I will add some {{fact}} tags to the places that I feel most strongly need additional citations.
3. It is broad in its coverage. Weak Pass
I think article does a good job with describing the make-up and history of the system, however my one complaint is that the section on "special services" is a little too detailed. This is related to my comments about the prose. Wikipedia is not the place that I would go to learn detailed information about those services. Some information is reasonable, because,for example,the "Tar Heel" express is a interesting part of the system. But I don't think the scheduling and pricing details are encyclopedic.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Pass
I didn't see anything that I considered POV.
5. It is stable. Pass
Almost no changes since it was nominated for GA status.
6. It contain images. Pass
Personally, I would like to see some more images though. Perhaps a photo of a bus, or an image of the service map would help.
The article is a good start, but I think it needs a little more work to qualify for GA status. Take a look at my comments, and if you any questions, please contact me. --- The Bethling(Talk) 19:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)