Talk:SmarTrip/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I will get started on researching your concerns, but will give you a chance to finish your review. I would like to get this wrapped up as quickly as possible. Again, thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This looks to be quite a reasonable article and should make GA-status this time round.

Working my way through the article, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last, my view are comments are given below. If I don't comment here on a particular section, that means that I've not found any "problems", or I found a minor problem and fixed it as I worked down the article.

Overview -

Clicking on reference 5 (Weir, Kytja (July 7, 2011)) goes to "today's" edition of the Washington Examiner (and a sorry not found message) and not the reference cited. Possibly, because July 7, 2011 has not arrived - although that is probably a typo.-- Replaced
Clinking on reference 6 (Giesecke & Devrient (2008)) gives a not found message. - replaced
It's not clear to me what the statement "Metro pays $3.40 for each card." means (and the citation is broken so I can't check it). The obvious questions are: pays who?; and why do they pay? -- Removed

The contractor bills Metro $3.40 for each card, and Metro distributes the cards to users at a price that has changed over time. Racepacket (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the SmartBenefits program and there does not appear to be a wikipedia article on this topic (I could not find one) so much of the second half of the fourth paragraph is meaningless to me. Potential GA's should not be written only for Washington, USA, readers.

Your criticism is valid and I will explain the reference. Racepacket (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism -

It's not clear how up to date and relevant these statements are, its currently almost half way through 2011 (five months), but much of this section does not appear to have been updated since 2008/2009; for example:

The first paragraph gives a general criticism about lack of availability of these cards. The first two sentences are unreferenced, or might be the same reference as the third section; which is marked as a dead link, so these three sentences are not WP:Verifiable at present. So its not clear whether they predate 2008 or are 2008 statements; and 2008 is several years ago, so things might have improved?
The second paragraph may also be out of date: there is a statement that "A number of SmarTrip features that were supposed to be introduced in 2005 by SmarTrip's creator, Cubic Transportation Systems, have yet to be implemented", but that is supported by a reference dating back to February 2008 (some three years ago). The remainder of the paragraph makes statements about features to be available by September 2009 but not yet implemented and others to be made available by December 2009, but the cited reference dates to November 2009.

The features have not be implemented. I could refer to the smarTrip website, but the absence of the feature on the website does not affirmatively show that they are not implemented. Metro has issued an RFP for a replacement system, so further development of this system is under a cloud. What do you suggest? Racepacket (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my changes. Racepacket (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We edit conflicted, so I'm add my comments, and then reassess. Pyrotec (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, the third paragraph states "as of October 2010), so that is reasonably current. However, it does make statements about a feature that was due to be implemented by September 2009, but was delayed, according to a November 2009 press release, to Fall 2010. Since that was some six months ago, I would have expected an up date.

In response to your question, above, the final sentence in the final paragraph of Overview is verified by ref 8 ("Metro seeking next generation fare payment system". WMATA. Retrieved April 21, 2011.). That could be used to "verify" a new final summary paragraph in Criticism expanding on your comment above, i.e. "The features have not be implemented" and " Metro has issued an RFP for a replacement system, so further development of this system is under a cloud.". That should effectively counter any claim on my part that the information has not been updated. Pyrotec (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Lead is quite "thin". Its intended to both introduce the article and provide a summary of the main points. I'm happy that it provides an introduction, but there not much summary. For example, it states "as of 2004", but the body of the article states that the system was introduced (in part) in 1999. It mentions use on all Metrorail stations and on all Metrobuses, but there is nothing about the student and "Senior" variants, nor SmartBenefits program; nothing about the complaints over limited availability and the need to accept credit card payments at some metrostations. Pyrotec (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am expanding the lead. What do you think? Racepacket (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...I'm stopping my review at this point, its "bedtime" here. I'll review in the morning and make a decision on whether to place an "On Hold" on the review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the edit conflict. I am sure that we can resolve whatever problems you identify with a brief one or two day hold at the most. 02:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

As all the "problems" identified above have been resolved, I regard this article as being compliant with WP:WIAGA

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an informative article. Pyrotec (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]