Wikipedia:Featured article review/Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:39, 10 August 2009 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified .
This 2006 FA promotion has issues with criteria 1a, 1b, 1c and 3.
- Criterion 1a issues:
- random example: "BEST also earns revenues by way of advertisements on its buses and bus-stops, and through rent from offices on owned properties" -> "BEST also earns revenue through advertisements on its buses and bus-stops, and by renting out offices in its buildings"
- Persistent use of "till"
- mixture of British and American English
- Criterion 1b issues:
- The "culture and awards" section is pure fluffery
- Nothing on BEST's safety record?
- Info on governance? Board of directors? How does the government exert control?
- Are the bus services coordinated with trains so that passengers can transfer efficiently?
- Criterion 1c issues: Almost all sources are from BEST, giving me the feeling that this reads like an advertisement. In addition, there are a number of paragraphs without citations.
- Criterion 3 issues: Questionable PD claims for the images in the "History" section. There's no evidence that these images were published 60 years ago.
Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, biased sources, POV, prose, comprehensiveness, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist No efforts were made to address FA criteria concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Concerns not addressed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. The concerns listed above are valid, and with only three edits in the past month, there is no sign of them being addressed during the period of this review. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Pity that people put all that work into a nomination and then leave it to the wolves. Tony (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It only takes about 10 minutes to do that review....It might take 20 hours to fix it YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.