Talk:Intercity Express/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article currently does not meet the GA criteria.

• The article make use of very many short, one- or two-sentence paragraphs. The general writing style of the article is not sufficiently profession of what is expected of a GA-quality article (criterion 1a).
• Most of the article lacks in-line citations (criterion 2a).
• Why is a whole section dedicated to ExpoExpress. It is only marginally worth mentioning in the history section (criterion 3b).
• There is a trivia section, see WP:Trivia.

Since the article no longer meets the GA criteria, I will delist it in a week unless work is initiated to get it past the current criteria. Note that the criteria have changed since the article was passed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A week has passed, and the issues have not been addressed. I am therefore delisting the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenikk (talk • contribs) 03:50, May 15, 2009

So you're prosecutor, judge and executioner in personal union ... nice deal! axp_de^Hello! 20:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that might be a little unfair Axpde. True the GA process is a little without warning often, but that's the failure of the GA system, not the reviewer. Arsenikk is a fair reviewer, and his comments help articles improve, using the comments to improve the article while it is on hold leads to general improvements; if you think a specific request is unreasonable you can point that out at any point, even in hindsight. If the judgement is that questionable, it is possible to call for a reassessment again at any time, any user can do this. I think his comments are fair, but nobody bothered to do anything in the slightest during the week this was under review, and as such the article was doomed to be demoted. Speaking frankly, it has a pathetic amount of references for a GA, which would have got by two years ago, but not today. If you want to see a modern GA candidate, see Eurostar for what I regard as a near perfect example (obviously not perfect, improvements can and are still made). Less perfect examples, but still far better in terms of GA-level quality are BART and High Speed 1.

To be honest, to make this article shine it needs someone who is adept at both German and English, to allow those valuable news stories and primary source work to be understood and used to bulk up the information, and solidly reinforce what is there with good hard references. This is about 60 references short of a GA, if you wish me to slap on an arbitrary number, but I'd aim for 100 before thinking of putting it in really. The problems that this was delisted for were just the tip of the iceberg, there is potential, but right not it reaks of problems that need to be solved, and a GA shouldn't have an glaringly obvious flaws. A trivia section is a complete no-no. If you do speak German, try and spot the places where citation is missing, then use Google Key Words searches (I like skimming the News subsection) to drag up citations, that way you could make this article fit for purpose, and maybe back up to a modern GA standard. I hope this has been useful. Kyteto (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)