Talk:SmartBus/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: Grk1011 (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this! Grk1011 (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, as the nominator I will address all feedback given NotOrrio (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments unfortunately as I was already struggling with finding information for this article originally I dont think the aritcle will be able to see another GA nomination if it isn't considered broad enough, I will however get back to fixing the other problems that can be fixed NotOrrio (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General

Create a version of the route map using an open-source map. [1]

Infobox and lead

The second and third sentence appear to have a period between them when I think you meant to have a comma.
You describe the service as "more", "extended", "improved", etc. but don't explain what that's compared to.
You shouldn't need references in the lead. Is this inforation not included in the body of the article?
Calling out route 900 in the lead is a bit weird since you haven't identified the numbers for any of the other routes. This statement also only introduces 2 of the 3 operators. Suggest SmartBus routes are operated by three companies: Kinetic Melbourne, Ventura Bus Lines, and CDC Melbourne. All operate distinct routes, except for Route 900 which is operated by both Ventura Bus Lines and CDC Melbourne.
The system map link didn't work for me. This should also be a map, not a link.

History

20th century

This is where you should elaborate on what makes these routes different than regular routes. What did the policy initiative consist of?

21st century

Where did the trial come from? What led to it? Something feels missing here.
The first paragraph could use a rewrite in terms of grammar to make it flow better.
Need background on route 900 and its relationship to SmartBus. Was there an announcement that this was the next route as part of the program? The reference is just the route map and doesn't support the launch date.
Three orbital lines paragraph can be ok as an intro sentence without a reference, but it should be combined with the subsequent paragraphs about orbital lines.
The "first orbital route" paragraph is not fully supported by the provided reference. Ref 6 only speaks to the time of the trip and nothing about the date.
The remainder of these paragraphs have the same problems. A majority of this article is sourced to the route map on PT Victoria's website, leaving many, if not all, of the dates of launch, and history completely unreferenced.
Ref 6 is interesting in that it speaks to the reception of SmartBus, but there is no reception section.
Melbourne bus route 901 should probably be merged into this article

Network and Operations

The routes table is unreferenced
For the "excessive references" tag, I'd suggest using a summary ref style, like ref 22 on this article
The services section is a good place to elaborate on the minimum service delivery standards that SmartBus routes have.
The operators table is completely unreferenced

Infrastructure

The buses section has some future tense. Did that happen? Update.
Are the new electric buses in service alongside the others?
I'm not sure which information ref 22 is the source for, but the document lists Wikipedia as the source of its information. WP:SELFPUB issue.

Final verdict

Hi @NotOrrio:, I'm really sorry, but this article is a quick-fail. It felt that way early on, but I continued going through the article to provide some comments to help you fix improve the article. Most glaringly, this article lacks reliable sources for a majority of the information, failing GA criterion 2, and also it's not particularly broad, failing criterion 3. I don't see these concerns as easy fixes; it will likely involve significant research. Grk1011 (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.