Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rail transport in Victoria/1

Rail transport in Victoria

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 • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisting per immediate general consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous sentences and paragraphs without citations. Steelkamp (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 July 1952, the VR entered the diesel era, ... It's not explained up to this point what VR is. Steelkamp (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's weird how there is a list in the lead. Steelkamp (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the main problem appears to be that since the original GA listing was made 14 years ago there hasn't been enough effort to ensure the article is at GA status. I suggest searching for sources and removing any pieces of information that sources couldn't be found on. Ive added a citations template at the top of the article. I am currently working on expanding another article so I likely won't be avalible to look for citations. For now I am for de listing this article however if there is effort to fix the problems I may re consider my vote. NotOrrio (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see quite a few areas missing citations. This article is showing its age and has not been maintained to the standards we now have for good articles. I am supporting a delist unless the article is significantly improved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with delisting it until it is improved. Seeing as its original GA listing was made 14 years ago, there will have many changes made to this page, also with it being about a current topic instead of a historical one, it will most likely require rewriting for all the changes to the system in the recent years to bring it back to a GA standard. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 01:49, 23 January 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.