Wikipedia:Peer review/Asheville Redefines Transit/archive1

Asheville Redefines Transit

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… This article has probably moved up from the "stub" class, but it probably would help if there were some more seasoned eyes to look at the page and other specifics. Also, waiting on things like photos, etc. Thanks, Mindraker2 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mindraker2, here's just my 2 cents:

• Per MOS:TIME AM or PM should be lower case. While you are doing this you could add a non-breaking space with   between the digits and the letters, to stop the numbers appearing at the end of a line.
• I'm English, but I did spend five weeks last year in the States. However, I really struggled to understand the sentence "Throughout downtown, buses operate fare free; the standard fare is $1 per ride." To me, this would clearer as "No fare is charged downtown, but the standard fare elsewhere is $1." Please ignore if I'm being slow this evening.
• Per WP:EXTLINKS, external links should not normally be used in the body of article.
• Funding—How about: "For the financial year 2012/2013, ART's operating budget was $5 million.[ref] The entire Transit Fund revenue is derived from three primary sources: federal and state grant funding ($2.8 million), local tax support ($1.2 million), and passenger charges." Having amounts to $1 precision is really not helpful.
• You can use the {{fract}} or {{convert}} templates for the 3/4 mile. {{convert|3/4|mi}} gives 3⁄4 mile (1.2 km); useful as some countries don't use miles. Edgepedia (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought – what about the history of the service – what did it replace and so on ... ? Edgepedia (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, those suggestions are VERY helpful, and I am working on those right now. I'm going to look up what the changes of the service to see what I can type up on the wiki page. Thanks again for your help. 23:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few improvements along Edgepedia's suggestions, mostly to get the external links issue out of the way. In general, this article needs more citations of secondary sources, instead of agency documents. The article's content should ideally reflect the topics that make this agency notable, interesting and that merit the creation of an encyclopedia article. We need to make sure we're doing more than repeating information that's otherwise available on the agency's website, like route/schedule information and their own description of their programs. Ibadibam (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you -- your improvements were great. I really appreciate your input. Mindraker2 (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)