Talk:State-of-the-Art Car/GA1

Latest comment: 4 years ago by ArnabSaha in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 12:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

Comment

edit
  • The article mainly talks about the history. Maybe add another section "Today" and describe the current situation.
    • I've added a few words to indicate that it's been at the same location since 1989.
  • Or make a separate section for specifications.
    • I've separated design/development and testing into two top=level sections, and added a bit more about the specifications. How does that look?
  • Also move the citation from lead WP:CITELEAD.
    • CITELEAD allows citations in the lede if needed. In this case, it was added because an editor was arguing about the correct capitalization of the name.
      • If not arguing anymore (I don't find any), I will prefer removing that. Maybe add it here "1971 to manage the State-of-the-Art Car (SOAC) project."  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  08:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
        •   Done
  • Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, New York City, and Philadelphia - wikilink them.
    •   Done
  • Maybe add a note for Lo- and Hi-density, why they are Lo and Hi instead of Low and High. Its something new for first time readers like me.
    • I don't have an explanation for that, other than "the 70s were a weird time"...
  • "(The other two operating..." the bracket starts but doesnt end.
    •   Done
  • "1676mm broad gauge" use {{Track gauge}} template for things like this.
    •   Done
  • "small loading gauge" also add the dimensions. Pi.1415926535
    •   Done
 Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  19:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the comments! I believe I've addressed all so far. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • One more thing. Describe the mixed reactions of operating agencies, like how they were opposite to people's reactions as they dropped the project.
    • I've added what I can; the source doesn't say much.
  • Also add the scrapping year in infobox. Other than these, I dont find any other issues.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  08:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • None were scrapped. I've added the number preserved.
      • Yeah, preserved...

Congrats, passed.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply