Talk:Docklands Light Railway/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. So I will be assessing the article. Pyrotec (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

The article is a good article, but there are a number of points that need to be addressed if this artilce is to remain a WP:GA.

They include:

The WP:lead is a single sentence, and is non-compliant. It may just about introduce the article but it fails to summarise the main points of the article.

~~Quite a few of the paragraphs are single-sentence paragraphs. Wikipedia:Layout suggests that this should be minimised.~~

General description - 1st and 3rd paragraphs are unreferenced. 4th para is single-sentenced.

Section deleted, put into the Lead.81.111.115.63 (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History - Mostly unreferenced and mostly single-sentenced.

Initial system - 2 & 4th paragraphs unreferenced and two-sentenced.

First extensions - Unreferenced and mostly single-sentenced.

Second stage extensions - Only the final paragraph is referenced.

Current system - final two paragraphs are short/bitty.

Stations - Unreferenced.

Depots - Unreferenced.

Resolved.81.111.115.63 (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fares and ticketing - Mostly unreferenced.

South Quay bombing - Unreferenced.

Rolling stock - Unreferenced.

Tower Gateway rebuilding - Unreferenced and needs updating.

Upgrading Entire System to 3-car trains - first part is mostly single-sentenced.

Upgrading Delta Junction - Unreferenced and refers to Summer 2009 events as being in the future (not almost the present).

I will put the GAR On Hold so that these can be addressed.Pyrotec (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no progress has been made, and it's June 12. Article delisted. Once it meets the GA criteria again, it can be renominated at WP:GAN.Pyrotec (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have begin to address some of these problems following the expiration of this reassessment, I'm hoping to improve the article significantly.81.111.115.63 (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]