Talk:Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you for reviewing this article. I look forward to working with you and resolving any concerns or questions. Racepacket (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article which I enjoyed reading, especially since I took the Metro a few years back. My main concern about this article is related to scope. Overall, the article under-focuses on the network and services and the history between the establishment and recent events. At the same time, it tends to over-focus on governance and recent events. The best article within the scope of a transit agency seems to be Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, and although I'm sure it isn't perfect, it may be a very good place to gather inspiration.

Comments related to prose and style

The article has US bias. For instance, 'Congress' is mentioned before the mention of the area it serves. In addition, there is no mention wheresoever of what country it is in. - US added
Specifically, I would suggest that the segment "created by an interstate compact, authorized by Congress," be moved to later in the lead. - it is an essential element of describing the institution.
Infoboxes are not appropriate places for external links (beyond official sites). The "key documents" should be moved to an external link section, if they are even appropriate there (which I am uncertain of). - the charter is hosted on the official site, but is very central to understanding the organization, which is otherwise very misunderstood. Since infoboxes are not required by the GA criteria, isn't this a matter of discretion?
Avoid repeating links in {{main}} later in the paragraph. For instance, a reader may very well not understand that 'Washington Metro' and 'Metrorail' are the same. - done
The information on coordination issues should be converted from bulletpoints to prose, and mention more on with whom the agency cooperates. - done
"Interstate compact" is not a proper noun and thus not capitalized. - fixed
Link the defunct bus companies, even if they are red. -ok
Terms like "Board of Directors" and "City Administrator" are not capitalized, as they are common nouns, unless used as a title in front of the name.

WP:MOS says, "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper nouns (The British Prime Minister is David Cameron; Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France). Royal styles are capitalized (Her Majesty; His Highness); exceptions may apply for particular offices."

Please read the whole section: "use lower case for words such as president, king, and emperor (De Gaulle was a French president; Louis XVI was a French king; Three prime ministers attended the conference)." So only when a title is unique (a title which can only be held by one person at a time) or when it is immediately in front of the name, is it capitalized. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say "currently", instead say "as of [year]". - searching and fixing
'BWI Airport' needs to be de-acronymized, although the full name is not necessarily necessary.
What is 'BRAC'? - fixed
Areas, such as sq mi, need to be converted to km². {{convert}} makes this easy.
If you are going to include the list of board members, I would encourage a table, which would make it much easier to read. - done
There is a link to 'Metrobus', which is a disambiguation page. - done
There is one recursive link to 'WMATA'. - done

Comments related to content and scope

The lead is far too short, and doesn't summarize the article. It should perhaps be three full paragraphs (or so) and summarize all major aspects of the article. As a rule of thumb (but not a strict rule), try to include key information from all main sections. - done
The "services" is very short. I would expect a comprehensive summary of the operations of both systems. There is hardly any information at all here, it even fails to mention "key facts" such as network length, no. of stations, no. of lines (metro and bus), etc. I would also like to see a short summary of the police force. Just because there are sub-articles is not an excuse to write near-to-nothing about what is covered in the sub-article. - done
I would expect a section on fares.

The fare structure is very complicated and changed three times in 2010. I have added sentences that explain that it varies with time of day and distance.

The history section jumps straight from 1973 to 2004. Was there nothing of importance which happened then? Surely the agency, among other things, built the rapid transit and must also have somehow developed the bus system. Even though the bulk of history of the metro can lay within that article, the summary of the activities must be made in this article. - trying to expand
The mentioning of the parking lot issues is fine, but it seems disproportionate to the rest of the article. Personally I now usually place the history section late in the article, so the system can be presented before the history section, as it eases reader understanding. Simiarly, there should be a mentioning of SmarTrip in the services section. - cut way back and moved out of history
Why is there only mention of the directors from 2006 and onwards in the history, while older directors are listed under governance? A bit confusing for readers. - moved to history
I find it odd that the future of the metro network is discussed, while the current and past is not. - past is in history
I would expect the history of leadership to be interwoven into the history section, so it could be understood in relations to the operational history of the agency. - done
I would have said there is too much about current leadership, although I will with doubt let it pass. It would be nice if it was somehow made slightly compact, as Wikipedia in general should not be a listing of board members and other management positions in companies and agencies.
All US-formatted dates need a comma or period after the year.

Referencing

Not all parts of the article are referenced.
Please avoid page numbers after inline references. Almost all readers don't want to check the references, and while technically possible, such referencing inhibits the readability. If you want to refer to specific pages, you can use a "bibliography" section at the end or similar.

I agree that we want to be reader friendly, but Citing sources says, "When citing lengthy sources, you should identify which part of a source is being cited. For example, in the case of a book, specify the page number(s). " So, the question is whether to use the common named source with individual page numbers or create a separate footnote for each page that is cited. Do you have a preference?

External links check out good
Ref four (Virginia v. Tennessee) makes a statement and then refers in part to a WP article and in part to a primary source. This needs to be cited from a secondary source. - fixed
Ref 18 is oddly formated (probably some sort of typo) - line break in source prevented it from displaying correctly.
Ref 20 lacks accessdate, as do a few other refs - all references to the internet have access dates. All references to hard copy sources do not.
Ref 23 (adding another color) needs a publisher or author - removed
It would be better if the WMATA Compact was under "bibliography" or similar, and simply referred to that.

Please explain your idea.

Other comments

Image licenses check out good. However, avoid forcing image sizes. See WP:IMGSIZE; note that this is policy, not just a guideline.
Feel free to add more image [not a GA criteria, just advice].

I am placing the article on hold. I have asked for quite some changes, so we'll just see how it develops. Don't hesitate to ask if there is anything you're wondering about. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful review. I am starting to work on your items, but I am also working on another GA review as well. Racepacket (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although work has progressed, the nominator has now been indefinitely blocked, so I am failing the article. Should article work be taken up by another author, I would encourage the task-list to be completed before a renomination. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]