Talk:Maglev/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2006, so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant.Pyrotec (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAR Assessment[edit]

The major problem with this article is the lack of in-line citations and in some places problems with the prosse. The article is currently non-compliant with WP:Verify. In particular:

Most of the History section is unreferenced, apart from First Patents & the USA.
Commercial operation - unreferenced.
Technology - mostly unreferenced.
Advantages and disadvantages - mostly unreferenced.
Economics - has some references, but needs a clean up
History of maximum speed record by a trial run - unreferenced.
Existing maglev systems - mostly unreferenced.
Under construction - referenced.
Proposed systems several sections referenced, but not all.
Significant incidents - unreferenced.

Hello, wanted to say I found this article interesting, and I've done what I could to properly format references and add some where I could uncover them. I'm having trouble as the detailed science part is way above my capability. Also there appears to be a huge amount of duplication, between the history section and the lists for Past, Current, and Proposed systems, it seems daft to reference them twice, what would you think of simply deleting some of this pointless duplication? It is confusing me as to no end during editing as I try to semble some sort of order out of the article, yet I don't want to do something hasty that other people may dislike or regard as vandalism(!), so any thoughts on how to straighten that part out is appreciated. Kyteto (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kyteto for adding references. I will look at the article again. I had noticed that the Birmingham airport system appeared twice, with most of the detail in History. I was not too worried about this duplication; but the article could do with another good clean up, if it is to retain GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

The major problem with this article was lack of WP:Verification. This has now been mostly rectified, so I'm closing this GAR review and marking this article as a "GA keep". Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]