Talk:Skyline (Honolulu)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead is far to short. Look at WP:LEAD, which states that all sections are to be covered. I am also concerned about the split of history and controvercy. Also, the section on the route is very short, and should at least be supplemented with a route map (more info at WP:TRAIL).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There is very little technical information, such as capacity, headway etc. Also, after the decription given on the offical site, it seems the system is a rapid transit and not a light rail (as the terms are used on Wikipedia). The latter is simply a modern tramway, while the former is grade-seperated (which all fully-elevated systems fall into). Note that the terminology between light rail and rapid transit is vague, and slightly different in North America, Europe and Asia, but that on Wikipedia we are trying to be a bit consequent in our use of terms.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There is no need for a split in this case (simply merge the controversy into the history section, since it convers part of the chronology of events).

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): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The article is completly unimaged. While it is understandable that an article about an unbuilt system cannot have images of the system itself, it would be nice with substitute images (for instance of key locations, the bus system, politicians etc). Be creative.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold until the matters mentioned are seen to. There may be a fair amount of undone work. If you have any comments or questions, do not hesitate to state them. Good luck, and good work so far. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am passing the article. The expansion has addressed all my concerns. I would just like to comment that this is a fairly fast-moving matter of happenings, and that to remain at GA, it should be kept up to date when major incidents occur (politically or technically). Good work and congratulations! Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review comments

This entire article is hopelessly out of date and most of the supporting links do not work.

It should be removed from Wikipedia until such time that it meets Wikipedia's standards for correct information.Scottca075 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the question of "rapid transit vs. light rail," the rolling stock that would be used on the line is closer to what is used on other light rail systems in the United States than a typical rapid transit system (see this brochure from the official website here.) The city chose to build an elevated system to minimize the physical footprint of the rail line (see the "Why will the tracks be elevated?" question here.) Musashi1600 (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I cannot find any information about the rolling stock either place. All the images in the brochure depict rapid transit systems. The definition of urban transit is a bit loosely an urban, public rail transport system that runs entirely in its own right-of-way with no crossing traffic, and operates at a high frequency. As far as I can see, this projects meets all the criteria. To confuse you further, the Midland Metro (in the UK) is a light rail, while the Docklands Light Railway is a rapid transit. I notice that the official material consequently refers to it as "rail transit". I have been bold during my copyedit, and reclassified the system to rapid transit. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that rapid transit systems normally have significantly higher throughput capacities than what Honolulu's rail line will be capable of (the rapid transit article mentions a figure of 36,000 people per hour), but I see your point. I'll leave the rapid transit designation as-is for now. Thank you for your work on reviewing this article. Musashi1600 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. Take a look at light metro for more about low-capacity rapid transit. Arsenikk ^(talk) 06:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)