Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Manila Light Rail Transit System/archive1

Add links
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 kept by YellowMonkey 02:27, 10 April 2010 [1].

Manila Light Rail Transit System

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Toolbox
Notified: Sky Harbor, WikiProject Trains, WikiProject Philippines

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails several of the current FA criteria, in particular 1(c). The main issues are the lack of referencing throughout most of the article, many dead links, references lacking author in appropriate places, {{fact}} tags, listing of what seems to be trivial incidents such as recent suicide and crimes simply committed on the systems property in a table, a "see also" section with links from the main body, overlinking and sub-professional standard of prose. Arsenikk (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur with most of your assessment,especially the criticism of the incidents section. I also dislike the article's organization, as the over-long history section is mediocre writing at best, features an obnoxiously incorrect use of block quote, and should be after the sections on current operations. I say delist. oknazevad (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, I haven't seen this coming. As far as I can see from the article, there's only a single fact tag (and that's someone challenging the translation of the LRT into Filipino, which is the article's name on the Tagalog Wikipedia). However, I've been meaning to overhaul the article from its old 2006-era FA standards, as well as bring the citations in line with current standards, fix dead links and general attrition. I'll see what I can do to bring this back to a more appropriate FA state. --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation quality issues

No authors listed for newspaper articles with probable authors.
Pages, Vol & Issue required: ^ The Metro Manila LRT System—A Historical Perspective, Gary L. Satre, Japan Railway and Transport Review, retrieved May 8, 2006
Mixture of fullstops & non-full stop endings.
Inadequately footnoted history section
Lack of probable scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the newspaper articles do not have listed authors to begin with, and Philippine newspaper archives now do not go back as far as 2003 or 2004 (the oldest, which is the archive of the Manila Bulletin, was partially wiped when the newspaper revamped its website), so I cannot check who the authors are. Work is currently ongoing to begin fixing the citations on the article, as well as to cover details currently not cited.

In addition, the LRT has few scholarly sources to begin with. If there are any, they're not available online, and I'd have to go to the likes of the National Library of the Philippines to get them. --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, as you may have noticed, the FA criteria are a lot tougher now than three years ago. There are quite a number of substandard issues with this text now, and to be frank, it would fail even a good article nomination. Below are some, but I would encourage you to start with references, that are lacking for probably half the prose. Other content/style issues are:

  • A lot of very short paragraphs, such as "Each LRT line uses different fare structures." That is a twelve-syllable paragraph. But also a lot of other paragraphs are very small
  • Many headers are too complex, for instance "Station facilities, amenities and services" should be "Stations", and perhaps add a {{main}} to List of Manila Light Rail Transit System stations. "The LRT network" should be "Network".
  • There is quite a bit of overlinking. For instance, "stairway" is linked.
  • The blockquote is not appropriate, as it is very remote to the subject at hand. If you want to say something about post-WWII Philippines, say it in the text.
  • The images are unbalanced. The top third of the article contains no images at all (except a 100-year-old tram), and a picture of an actual train is not available until almost the end.
  • Measurements, such as kilometers, are not converted to their imperial counterpart. (use {{conver}})
  • Entities, such as "Manila Tren Consortium", which are industrial joint ventures to make a single bid for a project, are normally not notable (because all that can be said would be a duplicate of the information about the project) and therefore should not be linked (unless, of course, I am mistaken about the scope of the consortium).
  • The incident list troubles me a lot. First it claims that "[i]ncidents and accidents are rare aboard the LRT", but then it goes on and describes about four a year. The Rizal Day bombings are clearly notable, but should perhaps be integrated into the history sections. Rail operations will always have a number of smaller and larger operational discontinuations, some for mere minutes, others for a days. Using trains for suicide is commonplace around the globe, but is usually not considered newsworthy, and definitely not encylopaedic. Although Wikipedia is not censored, naming a suicide person is a very unethical move and can permanently blackwash the person, who has obviously had a tough and difficult life (even if there is media coverage of him). I would say that to include an incident, at minimum, there must have been fatality (excluding suicides) caused by an error from the system (again, not people being pushed into the tracks), or so substantial damage to the rolling stock that it was rebuilt or scrapped. Simple "closed for the day"-issues are not sufficient. If you would like to have more detail about this, it may be suitable with a subarticle. Also, the list is plagued with recentism.
  • Do not use "pesos", but the ISO-code.
  • The see also section is littered with links that occur in the text.
  • I find the section on rolling stock very confusion. First of all, I am actually expecting to see some specifications (if only basic) of the train, beyond the number of cars. For instance, max. speed, length, power output, width and years of delivery. It doesn't even say how many trains there are.
  • "Passengers at LRT stations are advised to not stay too close to the red tiles at the edge of the platforms (or yellow tiles in the case of the Purple Line) to avoid falling onto the tracks." is a very redundant sentence, as it could be said about virtually any railway in the world.
  • Safety and security are not subsets of each other, so the section should probably be called "safety and security". Safety is as you probably know related to the operations per ce (i.e. incidents caused by the regular operation and any technical failure). Security is related to damage (to people or property) caused by third-party people (riders, criminals, terrorists etc.)
  • It is common to have a WP:TRAIL-style map, among other things to provide easy access to the wikilinks for the stations, lines etc.
  • I would like to have seen more on the infrastructure, such as gauge, station design (island or side platforms), interchange with other systems (the metro, mainline railway, buses), and if necessary tone down the details of the fare structure.

I will stop here, but may add more comments later. Arsenikk (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, undue weight, focus. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 02:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm currently very busy right now with schoolwork so I apologize for not being able to address concerns in time, but I'm trying my best to do what I can. The only remaining issue with citations in fact is the long incident list (aside from a few in future expansion which I'm trying to finish first) which I plan to spin off into a separate article. The prose should be next. In addition, although WP:WIAFA states that FAs should be backed up by "high-quality reliable sources", what exactly does the qualifier "high-quality" entail? --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also, please don't forget the alt text that needs to be written. There's no simple answer as to what "high-quality" means, but you can read the policy on sources for more info. Eubulides (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing progress noted YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold, :) Cirt (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status?? Nothing has happened for three weeks, sections are still unsourced, and the table of incidents is still there. On another note, they only include post-2000 incidents. Did nothing happen from 1984-2000?? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just finished rewriting the history section, and it took quite a while to rewrite because I had to get the ordering of events right for the sake of flow. Work will continue on this one. Meanwhile, events beyond 2001 are the only ones with verifiable sources online. Any older and I will have to dig through (offline) newspaper archives. I left these references unchanged as I intend to spin this section off into a separate article. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I was never happy with the prose when it came (?twice) to FAC. The rot sets in during the second sentence: "It is comprised of two lines". Tony (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold - I see that Lambanog has been editing the article a lot lately. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 4:55 pm, Today (UTC−5)
  • Comment - Editing seems to have settled down. I think it is time for third parties to take another look at the article. Haven't re-read it myself yet, but referencing seems much improved (except for one cite needed tag). Unless somebody tells me they still plan to make a lot of edits, I'm going to re-read the article and give my vote. I'll keep Arsenikk's comments in mind while reading. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of images are still missing alt text; please see the "alt text" button in the box at the upper right of this review page. {{BS-alt}} needs entries to fix the two "Unknown route-map component" messages in the alt text. The alt text for File:Manila LRT map-en.png should be revised to reflect the gist of the map rather than not-that-relevant details such as colors; please see WP:ALT#Maps. Eubulides (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been busy the past week so haven't been editing it as continuously as previously but I plan on getting back to it if nothing else comes up on my end. There are still a number of areas I wish to improve and also include recent developments. Most of the issues Arsenikk raised I think have been dealt with, but if there are others, I might be able to address them too. I was starting with the alt text when I got pulled away. Will start by dealing with that again. Lambanog (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I think I'm close to a crossroads in my editing of the article. I'm willing to improve it further but I'm having doubts about the best way to do so. I have a couple of ideas of things to add but am concerned it might require significant overhaul of what is there currently and go off on a tangent resulting in diminishing returns. If there is someone willing to take a quick look at the article with an eye to pointing out areas that still need strengthening and an impression of how close or far it is from FA standard, that would be welcome. I think I've improved the prose enough so that if there are defects they can be remedied without too much effort. But maybe I have rose-tinted glasses on. Basically I'm looking for a nudge in the right direction. I'm currently aware of a couple of areas that could use tweaking like one picture that still doesn't have alt text and some references are still formatted slightly different from the others. I'm thinking of changing the picture. As for the references, if someone is going to take issue with the formatting please specify the preferred version. Know that I may argue the point. The only reason I haven't changed them already is the worry that the format chosen will be opposed and that I'll be asked to change them all back again to another one. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a look soon. As for a citation style; just choose one and make all the cites consistent with that. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 03:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep - Sourcing and prose looks pretty good now. Just one cite needed tag that still needs to be fixed. Alt text looks good. Too many non-free images for my taste. I say keep but fix the cite needed tag. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Four months have passed, and while the article has improved, it is still a long stride from meeting FA criteria. Large chunks still lack references. The prose is still substandard, and I will present some examples (with the odd content remark as well):

  • Regarding references I am generally following WP:When to cite. Is that generally considered an insufficient standard? While not every single factual statement is tied to a reference those remaining are in my view easily verifiable in person. I've removed those I find questionable, followed the general rule I've seen used by some that roughly every paragraph should have a ref, and have striven to verify the accuracy of all statements by riding the line myself and calling customer service to clarify fuzzy details. Articles shouldn't be based on OR but for generally insignificant or obvious details I'm wondering at what point it gets frivolous. It's hard to know what needs a cite and what doesn't absent a citation needed tag for every disputed part. There are certain cases too where judgment I think can be exercised. The numbering for example of the trains: 1000, 1100, 1200. The first two are not explicitly stated in any document I can find and the third is vaguely stated in one company source. However, if you go to an informal site in the external links section, one of them has a photo gallery of some LRT railcars that show the cars following the numbering system as described in the article. Can that be considered reliable enough or are we going under the assumption those photos are doctored or the numbers don't mean what the photos suggest? There are also cases where I have a source but the information is erroneous. I can remove content and still have an article if necessary; but more thorough guidance on this topic would be appreciated. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversions to imperial/US units is lacking in many places, even the infobox.
  • The system is not a "metropolitan rail system", but a "rapid transit". The former could mean anything. Also, there needs to be an early in-prose link to rapid transit.
  • It is described as a metropolitan rail system to differentiate it from the originally more nationally oriented inter-regional Philippine National Railways. "Rapid transit" is hyperlinked at least twice from what I can see once in the lead and in the infobox. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over" refers to area, "along" refers to a linear line.
  • In the instance I think you are referring to the distinction I think isn't important but if "along" isn't being used too much I probably don't have a quibble changing it to that. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no frills" needs a hyphen.
  • The "network" section could well be {{main}}ed with 'Yellow Line' and 'Purple Line'. These links do not need to berepeated in-line from the lead.
  • Under the section heading for 'network', add {{main}} with the links to the articles on the Yellow Line and Purple Line, as it is natural that the network and route description is in more detailed described in those two articles. Arsenikk (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "4-station" should be "four-station".
  • Many of the few places there are conversions, the number of significant digits is wrong.
  • A lot of text, but no mention of the number of stations.
  • And should very probably be mentioned (even if slightly redundant, although adding numbers in another section is highly that) in the stations section. Have no fears about repeating all information in the lead; if it's there, then it's probably important enough to say twice. Arsenikk (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The station section should probably use a {{main}} for the 'List of LRT stations'
  • I saw that. But would you not agree that a reference to a list of stations is more logical in the sections bout stations than that of the network? Or is it that the two sections overlap? In the latter case, consider consolidating them. Arsenikk (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was the section originally titled "Station facilities and amenities". One option I see is simply changing the header to something like "Station facilities" or maybe "Facilities" although I think that's a little too imprecise. Another is to change the "Stations" and "Rolling stock" sections to subheaders of a "Design" header. Repeating hyperlinks in a different section is allowed under MoS If I recall correctly and would make sense in this case. I favor that because it has the virtue of preserving the current logical top-down hierarchy of the header subjects: Network→Stations→Rolling stock. So my solution would be to hyperlink "30 stations" which I have recently written into the section to "List of LRT stations". Using a main template probably should only be used once and I think it makes more sense in the Network section. Please mention if you have a particular preference or alternate solution. Lambanog (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way the sentence is written, it seems like the Inquirer Libre only runs out at selected stations.
  • In the lead is says no-frills. Does that simply mean lack of accessibility? If so, that should be stated more directly.
  • In general. The need to exit and go up and down stairs and pay a new fare to change platforms, the single washroom per station, the original lack of air conditioning, etc. The no-frills statement is also in the lead. If the lead needs to be more specific I guess that can be done. But an idea of where to draw the line in summarizing would be helpful. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stores where passengers can purchase mobile phone credits and other goods and ATMs" needs commas to distinguish what is sold at the store and what is elsewhere, so aid the reader's flow.
  • 27,000 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) to 40,000 pphpd should be 27,000 to 40,000 passengers per hour per direction (PPHPD)
  • Sentences are starting with digital numbers; they should always start with prose numbers.
  • As a railfan, I want to know the exact width of the cars, not an "around" value; do they meet the European standard of 3.15 m, or are they actually 3.2 m? It is normal for producers and other material to state dimensions to the mm, or at least the cm.
  • I will check the sources I have available to see if I can get a more definitive statement but I've endeavored to produce what I have in front of me as much as possible so we'll see if that ambiguity was unnecessarily introduced. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a slightly more general note, the article uses a fair bit of "around" and "about". When a number of significant digits is presented, then the reader automatically presumes that that is the accuracy of the information, so the "around" becomes redundant. Arsenikk (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article states that the Purple Line runs "heavy rail metro cars". The distinction between "light rail" and "heavy rail" is always vague (as neither really has a clear-cut definition), so the prose should describe how these differ.
  • A lot of words that should have hyphens lack these (for instances "first generation" and "light weight" when used as an adjective)
  • There are 139 railcars serving the line (40 trainsets); remove the parenthesis and write this straight into the prose.
  • The table about the rolling stock has vast amounts of capitalization errors. Also, why is the table not in standard format (i.e. class=wikitable)? Values should be converted to imperial/US units.
  • Copied the exact wording and format from the source for the most part. But will reformat the text if that's preferred. "Wikitable" not used probably because I was experimenting with table layout at the time and "wikitable" doesn't seem necessary as it seems to serve basically as a template. With sufficient table formatting familiarity I think it can be replicated using other syntax. I have not read any style related help file mandating its use. Is there any particular table detail you wish rectified? Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capitalization looks good now. Remember, most people can't spell, particularly engineers, scientists, academics and anyone else publishing official documents. As for the table formatting, I feel the present format looks ugly, and the use of "wikitable" makes it more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. On a second thought, is it possible to move the images so the table has the full width of the screen?
  • There should be a   between numbers and units for instance (1500 volts).
  • When there is four or more digits to a number, put in a comma to aid the reader.
  • What is "low noise control"? I presume this means low-noise control and not low (noise control).
  • "regenerative braking" should be wikilinked
  • Who has deemed the operations as "good"? This needs to be explained in the prose.
  • Why is it necessary to state the three codes of customer warning in a bloating table, when the issue is highly peripheral.
  • A legacy from earlier versions of the article created by the original contributor. I have no opinion either way. Will remove it if it is considered distracting. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The LRTA's website does not show the new three-color customer warning scheme, for one. And how exactly is it "highly peripheral"? I'm inclined to believe that although this information may seem to be irrelevant to some, it can be highly relevant to others: for example, if there's a Code Red, single-journey tickets are non-refundable. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence Eating or drinking is prohibited inside the platform area of all LRT stations and inside the trains., remove the "all LRT", since the reader will automatically presume this.
  • Why is "Passengers at LRT stations are advised not to stay too close to the red tiles at the edge of the platforms (or yellow tiles in the case of the Purple Line) to avoid falling onto the tracks." particular of the Manilla system? Doesn't this apply to all rail transport in the world?
  • I decided to keep the line because the one following it is about prohibiting drunkards from entering and causing trouble. This line preceding it I thought would make it clear the severity of trouble an inebriated person can get into in a rail station. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not convinced; the latter is not dependent on the former.
  • US-style dates have a comma also after the year.
  • I think you may be referring to a style issue. Might depend on the particular sentence to determine how warranted it is. I'm not a big proponent one way or the other in the optional cases. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a style issue but I'm not sure it is one MOS takes a stand on. For example in "On January 1, 2000, [...]" my understanding is the first comma after the 1 is covered by MOS but the second comma after the year is not and is optional.
  • It is not common to post the exact fares of public transport on Wikipedia; mainly because such information will tend to vary regularly and because Wikipedia is not a travel guide. I would recommend limiting the article to at most the minimum and maximum single fares. Presenting the full fare structure will probably fall withing WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
  • I will see how I can reword the section to reduce the impression. Repetition in text can probably be removed and system use description streamlined. Reducing the fare structure presentation to just a top and bottom fare, however, seems artificial. Compared with the LRTA's fare matrix, the table in the article is simple. Since the LRT presents itself as inexpensive the fare structure is also of more import to the LRT than it would be for the Copenhagen Metro. I do not agree the current presentation makes it a directory listing. The list of statistics in many sports related articles would dwarf the tabulated information here. WP:NOTDIRECTORY seems addressed towards the creation of articles as a whole. WP:NOTTRAVEL from the example given seems designed to prevent topics straying from their subject or taking on one dominant perspective. I do not think those are issues in this article. Furthermore, fare structure is enumerated in other featured metro articles. I have personally used such data from a Wikipedia metro article when planning a visit to a destination for the first time. It is one of the most useful pieces of information and would probably be of greater interest to non-railway enthusiasts than details like gauge, electrification, dimension, etc. Still the opening of the new station complicates the fare structure so overhaul of the section is required in any event. Lambanog (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand including a single fair-use image of one of the tickets, but I cannot see how our non-free image policy allows four images.
  • The information about the fares reads like a howto.
  • Are you saying it should be removed? Personally, I think anyone who forgets to take their ticket upon entering then arrives at their destination and finds they cannot exit without paying another fare would appreciate seeing it stated in the article. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not saying everything about the fare needs to be removed, but it should be limited to a general discussion. But it seems to me the articles goes into excessive detail. See for instances how compressed the information is at Copenhagen Metro#Service, where the information is accurate, yet does not go into unnecessary detail. Arsenikk (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both 'List of Strong Republic Transit System stations' and 'Transportation in the Philippines' are in the body/navbox and thus should not be in the 'see also' section.
  • Why is the term 'tranvia' used instead of just 'tram'. Don't play around with people—call a spade a spade. Trams usually have different names in different languages, and are translated to tram (or trolley/streetcar if you like).
  • The Philippines is an officially English speaking nation yet I get the impression tranvia and tramvia when talking about the older system locally are more likely to come up than tram, trolley, and streetcar even in a discussion conducted in English. While I can understand how it might be perceived as a foreign word it possibly qualifies as an idiom in Philippine English. I believe it has been italicized in any event and used solely to refer to the pre-World War II vehicles. I will change the second instance in the text to strengthen the idea that a tranvia and streetcar are the same in view of your comment. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma after "At the end of the first year".

That is what I'll comment on for tonight; but since I haven't read the whole article word-for-word, there might very well be more. Arsenikk (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's late here as well so I may will have to make changes later. Thank you for the detailed comments. Lambanog (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two more quick things: try to avoid using the term 'railcar' or a 'car', 'wagon' or 'coach', because a railcar normally refers to a single-car multiple unit. Also, in the diagram map (the one coded with BS and the like), it is unclear which is line 1/2 and yellow/purple. Otherwise, looking much better today. Arsenikk (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following the convention laid out in the trail map help files. Both lines are urban metro lines so are colored the same. If you have a specific example in mind of how the problem can be addressed I might be able to adapt it but the map is a composite of more than 30 separate image icons so changing the color of the station and track icons for example is not simple. I'm thinking of changing the color of the text but the experimetal results I've seen in my view don't look attractive. Lambanog (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - Willing to work on this further but without clearer idea of what needs work I may not end up addressing the core problems. Possible philosophical differences with Arsenikk on what belongs and what does not, so may have arrived at an impasse on a couple of his criticisms. By my count, vote is currently split 2-2 if the editor working on it has an implicit vote. Would it be all right to solicit further opinion on the article in another forum? Lambanog (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just. Prose is very compressed & jargon-ridden. What is "headway" here? The intervals between trains? Is any of the track underground? How are the trains powered? These points weren't clear. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is just about there now. Like Johnbod I'd like to see just a few words explaining what "headway" is – could be as simple as the distance between two trains – and I also found "stored value ticket" a little odd. Why isn't it "stored-value ticket"? Anyway, one thing I did find confusing was this comment in the last paragraph of the History section: "connections between the Yellow, Purple, and Blue Lines completed". I'd thought up until then that the network consisted of two lines, the Yellow and Purple, and that maybe I'd missed something earlier, so I went back and checked the maps before I followed the link to Blue and discovered that the Blue line is part of the Manila Metro Rail Transit System, not the Manila Light Rail Transit System. I think that ought to be clarified. Malleus Fatuorum 14:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your reviews and comments. Will reword and attempt to clarify and address the concerns raised. Was not sure about stored value either but that is what appears on the LRTA website so that is what I used. Lambanog (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. prose could possibly do with a little more massaging but I'm fine with it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I still have issues with the content, but the quality of the prose, MOS issues etc. seem to have been fixed up—it is looking a lot better than when it was nominated. My concerns are related to that the article still reads like a travel guide, providing information which is not encyclopedic, in particular the excessive amount of information on the fares and the codes for disturbances, both which are provided in a table. The "fare" section is longer than any other. My neutral is because, as far as I can see, these are the only issues left for which I would not support the bronze star and if all other reviewers do not have an issue with it, then I will not put it between the article and FA status. Otherwise, I would like to congratulate Lambanog on the good work with the article. Arsenikk (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Manila_Light_Rail_Transit_System/archive1&oldid=1089082486"