Talk:Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The prose is fine

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
While the main body is almost entirely about the organisational structure - there is very little such information in the lead. ~~There look to be some minor layout issues as well which I will try and fix now.~~
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:
~~I do want to have a check over some of the sources myself.~~ Now done.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
No comparisons are made with the structure of urban transport organisations - I would be interested in how the structure of the urban transportation in Washington DC compares to New York, and ideally cities like London and Singapore. I would still be interested in more on this but I don't think the request is reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
There is a huge amount of coverage on the company structure, prehaps this could be trimmed and more could be added on the trains and bus services themselves. Like for example how frequent they are. I would also say that the history section needs more content between the 1970's and 1990's. I also think there is too much coverage of the recent stuff, the financial crisis stuff is overdone, as is the content on the political wrangling over the airport name.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
There is very little criticism in the article, I would have thought there would be some issues with how the metro system in Washington DC operates. Personally I found there to be not really enough trains outside of peak hours - for example only one service on each line every 15 minutes to the airport, and there are decent areas of the city centre without a nearby metro station (e.g. the Washington monument). Additionally pointing out that its the least subsidised metro in the US (which I believe is true) would be good too. Also somebody must have complained about the Silver line not being built as an express service as they have in London, Paris, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Delhi etc. etc.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Great :)

I appreciate your comments about scope and focus. The intended scope was to cover the details of train service in Washington Metro, the buses in Metrobus (Washington, D.C.), the paratransit in MetroAccess, and so on, but to also have an overarching article covering the government agency which is notable for its funding struggles and governance challenges. I will make whatever changes you think are necessary, but I hope that criticism of the trains, buses, and paratransit would be placed in their respective articles. For example, there was a notable, multi-year dispute over a battle with Congress over whether to re-sign the rail system for $400,000 after Congress renamed the local airport. That issue is primarily covered in the article on the National Airport station. If necessary, we could copy some of the material from the daughter articles back into this article.

I will start researching the other major systems. As for subsidy, I am not sure how to measure that. Northern Virginia had no independent taxing authority, so they had the Virginia General assembly approve a 3 cent/gallon additinal gasoline sales tax. That tax funds a Northern Virginia Transportation Commission which makes an annual contribution to Metro. The tolls on the Dulles Toll Road have been raised $1 per trip to help fund the Silver Line. The amount of money therefore depends on the actual tolls and gas sales during the year. The NYC subway is subsidized by the bridge and tunnel tolls.

I will get to work and see what I can find in the literature. Racepacket (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly some criticism of the structure of the organisation would be appropriate, as well as any key bits of criticism for the sub-services. Those sections do need some more expansion. While the subsidy may not be fixed, you should be able to find some figures for an individual year - I doubt it varies that much and a ballpark figure adds a lot of value. With regards to the airport renaming, I think its reasonable to include, but I just think the content could do with trimming. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its also worth pointing out that criticism of the organisational structure would be valid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket as your RFC has gone to Arbcom, and as I wish to get involved with that so that it isn't just one group of people making statements I'm not sure what to do with this review. Racepacket if you want to withdraw the review, and re-nominate later that's fine with me, and if you want me to review it later then drop me a note on my talk page.

Otherwise if your happy for me to continue I'm OK with that, and I'll do my best to be impartial, if I feel I am unable to do so I'll ask for a second opinion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with you continuing. Thank you for asking. Racepacket (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a safety section and expanded the rail, bus and funding sections. What do you think? Racepacket (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Racepacket/WMATA looks much better. The lead still needs expanding a little, and I want to check some of the sources out, but if you expand the lead a little more then the ball will be very firmly in my court to check the sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have expanded the lead at your suggestion. Racepacket (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets get those changes into the live article, and then I'll look at the sources as best I can - this should be passing in the next few days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see its in the article now. Great :). I'll pass it formally over the easter weekend after looking at the sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]