Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bay Area Rapid Transit/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bay Area Rapid Transit[edit]

BART is a continuos process and is the #1 transit system in America. This article properly defines BART and it's future.Romeoslion 00:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. Needs to discuss things like the politics that went into the creation of BART, along with criticisms of the project both before and after creation. --Michael Snow 01:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Just a suggestion, but I would like to know more about the funding and financing. Was it a state or local project, did different jurisdictions have to collaborate, etc.? Also, what is the governing structure of BART? Have there been any controversies? Complaints from users? What are the system's plans and prospects for the future? Meelar (talk) 01:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • While I would love to see more railroad-related articles reach featured status, I'm afraid I must object in its current form due to 1) lack of references and 2) ridership figures, and 3) I'd like to see more photos of the stations, trains and infrastructure. slambo 02:39, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of good stuff there, but it seems to have a ways to go: Beyond what is mentioned above, the history section seems sparse compared to how many pages it gets at, and doesn't mention the Berkeley delays/lawsuits. Mention of SFBARTD seems not only late (more than halfway into the article), but incomplete--when was it created, what does it stand for (easy to guess, but should be explicitly stated)I found the spell-out in the intro, but the disconnect still seems problematic, and 'created by the state of California' is a bit ambiguous--the legislature, governor, CalTrans, or the voters? Why was the UC, Berkeley connector bus called "Humphrey Go-Bart", and why is it no longer? When did Marin and San Mateo drop out, and what reason was given? Same time/reason or different? Also seems to need an overall copyedit for grammar and flow, as it's kinda awkward and jumpy/choppy in places (eg "...and possibly north to San Ramon, Dublin, Alamo to the existing Walnut Creek station via the I-680 corridor.") Peer review might be a good idea if it hasn't already been there. Oh, and the prose should be able to stand on its own, not relying on the headers (eg ==Infill stations==These are stations that are planned to be built..." Niteowlneils 05:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I happened to run across this webpage[1], which seems to suggest at least a paragraph or two about early controversy needs to be added. The page is probably too POV to be used as the primary source, but assuming the facts can be verified elsewhere, a state commission requiring the system to run at reduced speeds for 5 years, and a public bailout that involved changing the governing structure of the organization seems to really need to be discussed. Niteowlneils 16:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. No references, appears too short to be comprehensive. JYolkowski 14:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Agree with the above on references. Also I may have missed it, but it needs a mention of about how much it costs for some example trips and the comparison of that to other similiar systems and other methods of transportation. - Taxman 22:36, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)