Talk:Transport in Penang
![]() | Transport in Penang has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 15, 2025. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Transport in Penang/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: LibStar (talk · contribs) 22:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 06:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
I will review this article. Please add comments to the review when items have been fixed. I am not a fan of striking through the text, as it make the review difficult to read at a later date, and it forms an important document for the review process. Bob1960evens (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Bob1960evens for taking up this review. I was the one who originally rewrote much of this article, so I'll be taking up the amendments. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
General
[edit]- The article reads well. I have done a quick review of some of the references, and they appear to support the text, but there are a number of multi-page pdf files, and these need page numbers, to show where the supporting information is in the file. Thus ref 29 "Urban Transport Study in Greater Metropolitan Areas of George Town, Butterworth and Bukit Mertajam, Malaysia: Progress Report (Phase 1)" has 107 pages, and ref 3 "Negotiating Identities and 'Sense of Place' in a World Heritage City: The Case of George Town, Penang, Malaysia" has 351 pages, but both only support one sentence. There are other similar refs. You may like to start working on resolving this issue.
Road transport
[edit]- The public buses section mentions that trolleybuses had replaced tramlines by 1936. This suggests that some mention of trams ought to be included. The title of Francis & Ganley (2006) suggests it might have some information, and Zhao et al (2018) has some details of horse, steam and electric trams. A couple of sentences should suffice.
- I'm rather unsure on this, as this article is angled towards present-day developments in transport, hence the little coverage on historical aspects such as the trams, which have been defunct since 1936. Could George Town's trams be split into a separate article instead? Seeing that there is another article about trolleybuses.
- I am sure that an article could be written about the trams, but I still think it needs a brief mention here. The article mentions roads from 1786, and expansion under the British. It mentions trolleybuses from 1925 to 1961. Most public transportation has a history, and there is nothing in the title of the article to show that this is only about modern transport in Penang. As I say, it only needs a brief mention, to give the modern developments some context. It comes under the "Broad in its coverage" part of the requirements for GA.
- I'm rather unsure on this, as this article is angled towards present-day developments in transport, hence the little coverage on historical aspects such as the trams, which have been defunct since 1936. Could George Town's trams be split into a separate article instead? Seeing that there is another article about trolleybuses.
- Bicycles section has
LinkBike operated a fleet of 250 bicycles across 29 stations in the city.
"Across" needs replacing with something more sensible. Presumably you can borrow a bike from one of the 29 stations?
Ports and harbours
[edit]Penang was once a crucial British entrepôt,
needs a little explanation, because entrepôt is such an unusualy word. We want readers to keep on reading our article, rather than clicking on entrepôt and not coming back.
Rapid transit systems
[edit]In 2009, the state government activated a committee
. "Activated" is not a good word choice here. Suggest "appointed" or similar.
References
[edit]- Ref 2 (Zhao 2018) is a 16-page pdf and needs a page number
- Ref 6 (Annual Report 2021) is a 172-page pdf and needs a page number
- Ref 7 (Statistik Jalan Edisi 2024) only supports 2 sentences, but refers to 76 pages of a pdf. Can it be a bit more specific?
- Ref 8 (The Proposed Pan Island Link 1 Highway Project, Penang). I cannot load this, the title should be in Title Case, not block capitals, and it is a 16-page pdf. There is a copy on the Wayback Machine, which you could link.
- Ref 9 (Statistik Jalan (Edisi 2013)) supports a single sentence, but refers to 48 pages of a pdf. Can it be more specific?
- Ref 10 (Mak Hoy Ken 2014) is a 71-page pdf and needs a page number
- Ref 12 (Rapid KL solution for Penang bus woes) appears to be dead
- Ref 14 (Sharom 2014) is a 35-page pdf and needs a page number
- Ref 21 (Joshua Woo Sze Zeng 2020) is a 21-page pdf and needs a page number. Also, is uses last=Joshua Woo Sze Zeng. This should presumably be last=Zeng |first=Joshua Woo Sze, or similar.
- Ref 31 (Rancangan Fizikal Negara...) is a 24-page pdf and needs a page number, plus a lang=Malay?
- Ref 34 (Penang Tourism Master Plan 2021-2030) is a 274-page pdf and needs a page number
- Ref 49 (Mesyuarat Pertama Penggal...) needs title in Title Case, not block capitals
- Ref 50 (Penang Urban Transport Study...) is a 64-page pdf and needs a page number
- Ref 52 (Enabling Decentralisation...) is a 45-page pdf and needs a page number, and a date=2022 (judging by the url)
- Ref 57 (Malaysia transportation statistics 2020) is a 96-page pdf and needs a page number
The formal bit
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- See comments above
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- See comments above
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Back soon. I just need to check the referencing more thoroughly. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Nearly there. I have added a list of refs that need attention, and thoughts on trams. In view of the speedy response you have made to the review so far, I will not put it on hold unless there are delays in addressing the final few issues. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- Will need some time to check out the refs, since I’m juggling commitments and issues at the moment. Appreciate the patience here. hundenvonPG (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's fine. I appreciate that real life issues are more important. Well done on what you have fixed so far. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Amendments to refs completed. hundenvonPG (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- I have checked the updated refs, and have now completed the GA assessment. I am pleased to say that the article meets the criteria, so am awarding it good article status. Well done, and keep up the good work. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- TYSM for taking the time to review too! hundenvonPG (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- I have checked the updated refs, and have now completed the GA assessment. I am pleased to say that the article meets the criteria, so am awarding it good article status. Well done, and keep up the good work. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- Amendments to refs completed. hundenvonPG (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- That's fine. I appreciate that real life issues are more important. Well done on what you have fixed so far. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)