Talk:Rail transport in India/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 05:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 00:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is going to be a quickfail. While some effort has been put into this article, I find too many issues for it to have a realistic prospect of achieving GA status at this time. Some issues I've found, in no particular order:

• In freight trains#services, the article says The first freight rail was operated between Bombay and Ahmedabad in 1966. The source says The first containerized freight service began between Bombay and Ahmedabad in 1966. These sentences have entirely different meanings. To make things worse, you repeat this in the history section, but there it was interpreted correctly. So there are two issues now - you are repeating the same information, and one of those times you also failed to get the information correct!
• The lead section fails to give any information on the history of India's rail system, despite an entire section of the article being dedicated to this topic.
• The history section is not at all organized. Instead, it is a seemingly random sampling of various events, with no attempt to connect them or form a logical narrative. For example, one sentence reads The Carnatic Railway was founded in 1869. There is no other context besides The Great Southern of India Railway and the Carnatic Railway merged in 1874 to form the South Indian Railway. But the reader is left with no information as to what the Carnatic Railway is or why it matters at all!

This is a recurring issue throughout the article. Where paragraph breaks and sections could be used to organize information, they are missing. Instead, lots of different things are thrown together one right after the other, in a manner that proves very confusing to a reader. Another example is the severe overuse of the words "on" and "in" - this belies the lack of organization. Again, it is clear that various tidbits of information were thrown together in chronological order with no consideration for if they fit together or not.

To give a concrete example, the section "1947–1983: Zonal re-organisation and further developments" really needs to be split into two subsections. One should cover the creation of the railway zones, and another should cover technological advances. Instead, the two are mixed together.

• The sentence India Railways operates various categories of express trains including Rajdhani Express, Shatabdi Express, Garib Rath Express, Double Decker Express, Tejas Express, Gatimaan Express, Humsafar Express, Duronto Express, Yuva Express, Uday Express, Jan Shatabdi Express, Sampark Kranti Express, Vivek Express, Rajya Rani Express, Mahamana Express, Antyodaya Express, Jan Sadharan Express, Suvidha Express and Intercity Express is an abomination. It is a sea of blue, a prosified list, and a massive run-on sentence.
• The accidents and incidents section is laughably incomplete at just three sentences. 170 years of history, and the best that can be done is three sentences? Surely there have been significant accidents in the system's history that have led to safety changes? And surely there are initiatives and plans to improve safety at present?
• The Manufacturing and maintenance section is one giant paragraph with little organization. It is covering two topics (manufacturing and maintenance) so pretty clearly should have two paragraphs, one for each topic.
• Metro coaches are manufactured by various companies including state-owned ICF, BEML and private companies like Alstom, Mitsubishi, Hyundai Rotem, Bombardier, Siemens, CRRC, Titagarh Firema and CAF with the respective metro systems maintaining their own maintenance depots. Here again we see a giant sea of blue and excessively detailed list.
• More repeated information, the sentence In 2020, Indian Railways allowed the operation of private passenger trains for the first time with the first train flagged off from Coimbatore in June 2022 appears twice in the article, in two different sections.
• The "Higher-speed rail" section, instead of giving a concise overview of the subject, begins with the non sequitur In 1980, the WAP-1 electric locomotives reached a speed of 130 km/h (81 mph). That's not high speed rail by any definition, and the significance of this is not explained at all. The reader has to skip to the next paragraph to gain some understanding of the history of high speed rail in India.
• There are far, far too many examples for me to try and pick them all out, but there are significant issues with grammar and prose throughout this article. It needs copyediting, I recommend submitting a request to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.
• The section Mountain railways claims that there are three mountain railways in India, but Mountain railways of India shows there are at least five that would fit the description (missing are the Matheran Hill Railway and the Kangra Valley Railway.
• Cross-border services ignores the proposed links to Bhutan.
• No mention at all of the Chennai Rail Museum or the National Rail Museum, New Delhi?

Please take these comments into consideration, consider using WP:PR, check the article for text-source integrity, and seek assistance with copyediting before renominating. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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.