Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rail transport in India/archive2
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 02:24, 3 August 2009 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]Notified WikiProject India, WikiProject Trains, Nichalp and Dwaipayanc.
This article was an FA promotion from 2005. It was previously at FAR, but closed early on a good faith assumption that improvements would continue to be made on the article. Although some improvements were made, the article still has a number of issues:
- More than 60% of the references are from Indian Railway Fan Club, which is quite clearly not a reliable source
- Other RS issues – reliance on Indian Railway sources, aboutpalaceonwheels.com, triptoindia.com, self-reference to Wikipedia (!)
- The article is not representative of the published body of work on Indian rail transport
- Inconsistent capitalization
- A number of unsourced paragraphs/sentences
- This article focuses too heavily on listcruft, rather than prose
- R&D section: What about private investment? What exactly has it done since 2003?
- Image issues: File:Budgam Station.jpg is tagged at Commons as missing permission, File:Bholu.png does not have a fair use rationale, and File:IR sample ticket.jpg might be a copyright violation.
- There are a number of areas where the article lacks info:
- Freight railways in India
- Costs? economy compared to road or water freight? pro/con of rail compared to road/water transport
- Safety? People hanging off the trains without proper seats?
- Train terrorism
- Technology? Good or bad?
- Complete lack of historical development
- Technical specifications in lots of detail but other things are neglected
To summarize, there are numerous issues with FA criteria 1a, 1b, 1c and 3. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How is IRFCA not a reliable source? Their content is peer-reviewed on their mailing list, and can they not be generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand ? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is no indication that there are site editors who review contributions by the fan club members to ensure accuracy, verifiability and neutrality. Some of the articles from other publications and reprinted on the site, authored by specific persons, might be all right as references. But the site is clear that it is not an "official site". —Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliables sources, prose, comprehensiveness, balance, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per above; a rewrite would not be amiss. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Issues have not been addressed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist—this is a great pity, but there's nothing much we can do about it. Way below standard. Tony (talk) 11:17, 1 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.