Talk:Rail transport in Puerto Rico/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Commencing GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 23:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• References 1, 2, 3, 8, 11 and 18 are no longer active or dead. Therefore, at least 15 citations are no longer valid.

• Some sentences contain statements and claims that are unsourced and require references.

• Reference 4 is a confusing in-line citation. It comes at the conclusion of a paragraph, but it is unclear whether the entire paragraph, or just the final sentence, is being referenced. Additionally, Reference 4 is to a book, but no page numbers are given. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 09:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 18, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. This action has been taken immediately because of the substantial problems afflicting this article. The article requires extensive attention and improvement, and is very unlikely to be brought up to GA standard within 7 days. The article has failed GA criteria per the review set out below:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Generally of an adequate quality. However, the "Downfall" section contains a list which is identified within the article as requiring expansion. This does not meet GA standards as set out in GA:WIAGA. Additionally, the title "Downfall" seems rather melodramatic to describe a railway system's decline.

   b (MoS):

   • Generally conforms to MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • This article contains many references which are no longer active. These need to either be replaced with alternatives/resourced, or the information cited to them removed from the article. Additionally, there were some statements and claims made which contained no references, as well as confusing in-line citation.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Citations are to mostly third party publications.

   c (OR):

   • There appears to be no evidence of OR; however, the problem with referencing makes this impossible to ascertain with any finality.

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.

   b (focused):

   • Remains focused. No digressions.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   • Appears not to violate NPOV guidelines - however, again the problem with references is a cause of concern.

5. It is stable:

   • No edit wars etc.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • Images are properly tagged and justified.

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Images are accompanied by contextual captions.

7. Overall:

   Keep/Delist: DELIST ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 09:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)