Talk:Myrtle Avenue Line (surface)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Myrtle Avenue Line (surface) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: Error: invalid time
Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City Public Transportation.
Low Importance: low within New York City Public Transportation WikiProject.
This article needs a map. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article. Once the requested map is added, remove the Mapneeded parameter from the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template call on this page to remove this map request.

[edit] Good Article Nomination

Good morning (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 06:42, Tuesday June 10, 2008 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has failed one or more categories and is therefore denied GA status. In order to provide constructive criticism, I have below listed one or more of my reasons for failing the article, beside the relevant criteria title; this should be taken as advice for improvement, rather than a list of reasons for failing.

  1. Well-written: Failed
"...the prose is comprehensible, the grammar is correct, and the structure is clear at first reading..." - the article is set out in a very messy format, and is not at all tidy; this detracts from the quality of the article.
  1. Factually accurate: Pass
  2. Broad: Pass
  3. Neutrally written: Pass
  4. Stable: Pass
  5. Well-referenced: Pass
  6. Images: Fail
"..It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic..." - there are no images.

My condolences to the lead editors - your hard work has been informally recognised; just keep it up, and do not be disheartened!

Feel free to renominate the article when the above improvements have been made, or alternatively seek a GA Review or discuss my decision at my talk page if you believe I have been misguided.

Sincerest regards,
anthonycfc [talk] 05:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)