Talk:Chennai Mass Rapid Transit System

Merge with Mass Rapid Transit System (Chennai)

Listing the stations in Chennai MRTS doent merit a separate article. We can merge neatly with its parent article. Nattu 14:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think this list should be made into a template, as opposed to its current form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmanck (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to include parts of this in General article on Rapid transit

Can we all work to include portions of this artcle smoothly into the above general article on Rapid transit Nattu 20:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Can this article be made a featured-quality one like MTR? -- Sundar (talk · contributions) 08:39, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Any article could be made featured-quality, we just need a lot of research and information. And I am willing to aid in the task to transforming this page to a higher-quality one.Hmanck (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggested merge with Chennai suburban railway

I suggest that the current article be retained as it has a older history. As indicated elsewhere, it may need to be renamed later by performing a move operation after the merger. I will wait for comments till the 9th of February 2006 before carrying out the merger. --Gurubrahma 09:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing the merge tags, but adding it in "See also" as per discussion on Talk:Chennai suburban railway. --Gurubrahma 19:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

9 car rakes

I've used the Suburban rail every day for the past few years. Many of the trains are 12-car. Just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roshangeorge (talk • contribs) 05:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the MRTS described here is separate but integrated from the suburban rail. I think it's said that the suburban rail uses 12-car trains, but not otherwise for the MRTS? Are you sure it was the MRTS? H-Man (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent Reflexions on the MRTS

The following http://www.hindu.com/mag/2007/12/09/stories/2007120950080400.htm contains a number of ideas about and criticisms of the MRTS. Hair Commodore (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Your point considered. Though the article is not recent, the status of MRTS is still the same, as the recent references criticise MRTS for the same reasons repeatedly.

Please go through the criticism section now. The reference you have mentioned and several other references have been included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysun312 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

ARTICLE UPDATED - Latest updates (with references as newspapers) have been added.

Several latest updates have been added to this article.

Latest updates on extension between Velachery and St Thomas Mount have been added by using newspaper articles as references.

SOMEONE HAS TAGGED THIS ARTICLE SAYING IT IS NOT UPDATED. PLEASE REMOVE THE TAG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysun312 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticism Section

1. NEUTRALITY ACHIEVED (ALL POINTS HAVE AUTHENTIC AND POPULAR NEWSPAPER REFERENCES)

2. INTRICATE POINTS REMOVED

3. REDUNDANT POINTS REMOVED

4. RELEVANT POINTS MERGED.

5. EVERY POINT IS ASSOCIATED WITH A REFERENCE

6. GROUPING OF POINTS UNDER ONE SINGLE POINT IS A WAY TO ELIMINATE INTRICACY OF DETAILS

7. ARTICLE IS DEFINITELY RELEVANT AND THIS SECTION IS ALSO RELEVANT TO THE ARTICLE, GOES WITH THE TRENDS OF THE ARTICLE

8. COME TO CHENNAI, YOU WOULD KNOW HOW MUCH THE MRTS IS CRITICISED, AND HOW THE MEDIA GOES HAMMER AND TONGS AGAINST THE MRTS THUS ARTICLE AS WELL AS CRITICISM SECTION DEFINITELY REFLECTS THE TONE OF THE SUBJECT AND THE REALITY AS WELL AS THE CURRENT UPDATED STATUS OF THE MRTS.

Skysun312 (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Skysun312, you are missing the point. Wikipedia is not used to sway readers to one or more opinions or views on a subject. It is to inform, with neutrality. Do you see the scales? The scales are used to balance. Of course, finding a balance point is always difficult. Neutrality does not mean "newspaper-verified". In fact, some media outlets have been shown to slant information. I am not sure if that is the case for Chennai, but using primarily news sources is not a means to achieve a neutral tone in the article. Neutrality is achieved through your writing style, through how you write. For example, using all caps in writing (such as the above), or boldifying text, will show a more aggressive and assertive tone. Certain syntax and phrases must be considered to invoke a neutral tone when the reader reads it.

I dispute the current relevancy of the sources, as much the text. I have counted 40 sources that were listed in the section, despite the fact that some were duplicated. It complicates everything and a third-party viewer, such as me, will spend three hours reading multiple sources. You are writing a criticism section for Wikipedia, not a lawyer's argument. I also dispute your assertion that the section "goes with the trends of the article". The article was written as a neutral informational piece describing the Chennai MRTS. The section in question appears more of a single-sided argument, rather than a piece. While it is NOT opinionated, as it is supported by some consensus through media outlets, the piece has a strong biased tone that could be further ameliorated.

I agree that grouping the points under sections addresses the questions of the intricacies of the previous edit. However, creating multiple sub-sections does not entirely resolve the intricacies of the piece in general; there is still a long list. Moreover, these are long lists, which are not entirely backed with more information. For example, give more providing examples from the exorbitant number of sources to reinforce why a certain issue needs to be highlighted.

Lastly, you are clearly missing the issue. We just want to see a more well-written criticism piece. We do not need to see more examples, or first hand experiences, of why you perceive the Chennai MRTS to be in a certain way. Additionally you mentioned the fact that "the media goes hammer and tongs against the MRTS". If the media goes "hammer and tongs" in your own words, does not that suggest that the media has a biased focus against the MRTS, and would therefore disqualify most of your sources as biased for this criticism piece?

My intention is not to pinpoint you or attack you. My intention is to help out the Wikipedia community, to create new articles and edit existing ones, so that we can provide a constantly-informing database for the citizens of this world. It should be a wonder to you, or others, how a New Yorker would stop by and help fix an article on something that has nothing to do with him or his city. I suggest a moratorium on your editing of this section. It should be looked upon with great detail by other authors and editors, so that we can create a piece that properly addresses whatever issues the public of Chennai may have, but in a tone that is in compliance with Wikipedia's standards. We should talk here about how we can fix and re-write the section.Hmanck (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that the criticisms on infrastructures and schedules can be retained, while petty issues (such as “slum dwellers, hawkers, Rowdies,” “scary, dark and dangerous;” “no feeder services or shuttles, no auto or taxi options near most of the stations,” etc.) can be ignored, as they have nothing to do with the project. They are to be resolved by the administrators of Chennai. By terming these issues as “petty,” I don’t mean that these are insignificant. I just mean that these don’t come under the scope of this article. Discussions welcome.Challengethelimits (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of the criticisms citations appear to be cited to opinion pieces in various publications. This may fail WP:RS--anyone can write a letter to the editor or similar publication, but that does not make it an opinion that carries any weight (WP:UNDUE?). Likewise, a picture of a situation must not be interpreted to include motivation or opinions. Our articles cannot state more than what the sources do (no WP:SYNTHESIS or other analysis. Even worse, it is forbidden to misrepresent sources, for example, the cite of the cow picture is in support of the cow "posing a threat", but it's just standing there, and the writing in that same source states "they never cause any harm".

As far as the general organization, I don't think the ton of refs for the intro sentence of each set of criticisms is appropriate because it appears redundant to the cites for the specific entries themselves. This again goes to the idea that anyone can whine about anything somewhere on the internet, which is why wikipedia requires secondary sources (the plural of "primary-sources and anecdotes" is not "reliable source"). I'm not stating for sure that this is happening here, but a better approach would be to begin with more general statements about the types of problems, cited to more certainly WP:RS sources. DMacks (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Making this article better

I've come to the realisation that some of the users here would like this article to be made "featured-status". As a non-local, I want to see an article flower into "featured-status" from what it once was. So here's my plan, and I would like you to help me in fulfilling this common goal:

• Relationship between MRTS, the suburban railway system and the metro: What is the MRTS exactly? Is it a metro line, or is it an improvement from an existing urban rail network? Is this an entirely new system built complete out of scratch, or does it use former railway right-of-ways or an active conversion from pre-existing rail infrastructure?
• Fares: What are the fares like? How much does a single journey cost? Is it a flat fare like the New York City Subway or distanced based like the MTR? What is the method of payment? Is it a ticket, a token, a smartcard, a prepaid farecard?
• Hours of operation and frequencies
• A map of the MRTS route, separate from the existing rail network map. Other users not from Chennai, like me, do not know which line is the MRTS
• Turn the list of stations article or list into a template

What I will try to do is this:

• Improve the style by which the articles are written
• Organise the various parts of the articles, reduce redundancies
• Coordinate with others here to rewrite the "Criticism" section

Who's in on this? H-Man (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am on this. What do you think could be time period required to take the article to B-Class or GA-Class? --Anbu121 (talk me) 02:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends on how fast the information above that I requested can come in. Once we have sufficient information, backed by relevant sources, and aided by photos, I'll polish up the article and ask for a rating review. As of now, I cannot be over-optimistic and give any definite timeframe. Let's move on the pace that is alloted to us. H-Man (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

MRTS system is completely built from scratch. It does not overlap or relate to suburban or metro. Payment is mostly ticket through cash. Although monthly and quarterly prepaid passes are also available for regular commuters. Will get back with remaining info soon. --Anbu121 (talk me) 03:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What are the prices like? H-Man (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am not a regular commuter. I had travelled in MRTS only once some 4 years back. Will try to get some secondary source for price. --Anbu121 (talk me) 04:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Folks. Have started rewritting the entire section to Wiki standards without distorting any of the valuable information provided by various users. First let me thank Skysun312 (talk), whose relentless efforts in collecting some of the most valuable information have made this article move towards betterment. Will try my level best to retain all those valid info. Will let you know once I'm done. Cheers. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I want this effort to be a community-led effort and not an effort by one. I hope you can discuss each section within the talk page if you are going to go about it. As for the Criticism section, I'm considering reducing the information as much as possible. There's frankly no need to have a section that is half as long as the article itself, and much of the "points" are not fully elaborated, which means they could be condensed into clearer paragraphs. H-Man (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much H-Man, for offering to help with upgrading this article. Have done my best by rewritting the entire Criticism section as you suggested without losing any of the information/citations (except where the link is outdated, irrelevant, or not working at all) and have removed the "Multiple Issues" tag. However, I'm not removing the "Outdated Info" tag at the top of the article, as I think more needs to be added yet. Trust this is fine. Think we can now start off with H-Man's plan. Thoughts welcome. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a drastic improvement, I am liking it so far. When I come back from work later in the day, I'll make some more modifications, pending more information. H-Man (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

21:05 (UTC-5) edits: I condensed the history section, there is a lot of redundant information and too many repetitions. Moreover, the chronology of events was previously not logical. I don't know the exact details of the line, if the stuff is not chronologically correct or there are some factual errors, please fix. I also placed in new sections that are consisted with other rapid transit articles, namely rolling stock (which I know you refer to as "rakes") and fare and ticketing. Later on, I will add in a section for route description. H-Man (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have gone through the discussions on this talk page. I have also understood the corrections made by other editors. With regard to the questions asked by Hmnack,I would like to quote a link. It's from the website "erail.in" , which is an official website of Indian Railways. This answers all questions pertaining to the following.

1. Fares - Fare can be known in terms of distance at the link http://erail.in/downloads/FareSuburban2012.htm In case you want to know the fare from one station to another, simply visit erail.in and choose the source and destination station, click on a train number and you get the fares for different classes of travel

2. Train Timings/ Frequency. I request you to visit this link http://erail.in/?T=MSB::VLCY:

3. Map - I am citing for you one official link http://erail.in/rail/frm_Rail_Map.aspx?TrainID=6456 Alternatively better maps may be obtained by performing a simple google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysun312 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Car classes

I saw that Southern Railway's ticketing procedure employs a first class/second class system, but is there a first class for MRTS? If so, how many cars are designated first class? H-Man (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Wider Project

From the relative successes that we've had in regards to restructuring, rewriting and revamping the article, I am going to be a bit ambitious and will begin on an allied project. Like other rapid transit systems and their articles/projects, there will be an article for EVERY station. If you are a local user, I ask kindly of you to help me with the information and help me create some of these articles.

The format for the article name should be: station name (Chennai MRTS), which is the proper protocol. An example of this would be Chennai Park Town (Chennai MRTS). Note that station does NOT need to be in there. Exceptions to the rule include: if the station is being shared by another mode, such as the suburban rail network. There I would simply use station, like Chennai Beach station. I hope you can also include photographs as well.H-Man (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have created two station articles till now. Will expand them and create the remaining. --Anbu121 (talk me) 10:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of a local article on every station, one can perhaps have a section called MRTS station in the article of that area. For instance, in Mylapore article, we may have the section called "MRTS station" which will have details regarding this station. Similary for other areas like Mandaveli, Triplicane, Chepauk. Advantages of this idea: 1. Creating article exclusively on the MRTS station, would result in the article being a stub. Please think over - because, we don't have so much of information that would make an article on an MRTS station big enough for it not to be a stub. 2. Secondly, collecting huge amount of SOURCED information on a single MRTS station may be a tough task. 3. If MRTS station section is available in the article on the neighbourhood area, it would benefit both MRTS as well as neighbourhood articles. 4. INTRA wiki links in this MRTS article may directly be given to the section in the neighbourhood article. Hence, apart from reading specific information about the station as such, readers would scroll up or down the neighbourhood article to get a glimpse of what's around the station. Everyone Please Discuss....

Skysun312 (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that articles on stations do have potential to grow beyond stubs. Please check out these London Underground station articles: South Kensington tube station, Holborn tube station. Sourcing could be a problem at present due to non-existence of MRTS official website and due to the fact that media is not matured in India, but that should not be a hurdle to create the article. Sources are bound to come in the future. An article in Wikipedia has the right to exist if the subject meets the notability guideline and if the article is supported by atleast one reliable source. For your concern on neighbourhood articles, a two or three line summary of the station could be provided in the transport section of the article, along with link to the station article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see why some may not want to have the station articles. But User:Anbu121 is correct - there is the potential for them. It is not to say that they're completely useless. In fact, I think such information can potentially raise awareness of the existence of this train line. Proper awareness to ride it; proper awareness to petition to the government or the railway company for improvement. Perhaps I am being too hopeful, but I think it could provide a bountiful amount of information.H-Man (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding re-inclusion of table.

I have re-included the table (which was once there in this article) in the section named "Construction and opening". This table has Necessary as well as important (and maybe rare) sourced information regarding partial completion of the MRTS line upto chepauk in 1995, completion of single lane upto tiruvanmiyur in 2004. This information is hitherto not present elsewhere in the article. Hence I have restored this table. If you feel redundancy because of the presence of two similar (but not same) tables, you may merge the info present in the two tables into one single table. Alternatively, you may delete the table, but move this information into the text area into the relevant section. Skysun312 (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have deleted the table (as most info were redundant). However, I have moved some info to the text. If I have missed some, please move them to text. Also feel free to revert my changes if my actions were inappropriateChallengethelimits (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding tamil names

I am pointing out some of the mistakes in the Tamil names mentioned in this article.

1. In Tamil newspapers, apart from parakkum rayil, it's more commonly referred to as mempaala rayil. Anbu121- Please check up some dinamalar sources in the references section, if you don't believe.

2. Secondly, many of the stations don't have correct Tamil names. I am pointing out some of them below:- 1. chennai beach, chennai fort - none need of "ik" - Please check the official spelling

2. Greenways road - the official Tamil name is Pasumai vazhi salai

3. Other mistakes too like spelling mandaveli in tamil is wrong in the article

My suggestion is to remove the tamil names for stations - Why really have them ? English would be sufficient. Moreover, in case of Railways, (bcos it's central govt.) it's necessary to mention Hindi also if you are going as per the official terms of Railways.

So, Let's stick to English, and not bring in Tamil for the station names. If you don't agree to this, then have proper spellings and correct official tamil names - don't put wrong tamil names for stations on this wikipedia article as it's better to have "no tamil information" than "wrong tamil information"

Skysun312 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Official terms of Indian Railways does not have implications on Wikipedia. Wikipedia content are stored in servers in Florida, answerable only to US Laws. (and a proxy server in Amsterdam I guess) Wikipedia does not have any policy or guidelines on using local scripts. It is left to be decided by talk page consensus of editors. I have no opinion on whether to include them or to remove them. User:Rasnaboy to reply here. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, someone please check up the official Tamil spellings and write them correctly here. I have pointed out errors in tamil names of some of the stations, someone please correct them after checking the official names

I have to agree with Skysun312 here. As we are now going to create new articles for individual stations, we can reserve the Tamil names for those articles. I have already started collecting data on different MRTS stations. I believe removing Tamil names won't harm the quality of the article.Challengethelimits (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I duly object to the matter of entirely removing the Tamil names. Certainly I did not write them, and if they pose major fallacies, I ask that they be changed. Although the article is English, the article's language merely represents the language that is used by the people whose preferences are to view articles in that specific language. It does no harm, however, to include the names in the local language. I have seen this done for the rapid transit station lists and articles for East Asian rapid transit systems, most notably the MTR. Duly, if you wish to desire to achieve a high standing with the article, I suggest you add it back. Just make sure that it is agreed by all, and backed by sources. H-Man (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Dubious Tags

1.The information on route length is wrong in some places. Reliable sources: http://www.erail.in/?T=MSB::VLCY:# and http://www.sr.indianrailways.gov.in/uploads/files/1345106736152-MRTS WEEK.pdf say that the distance is 19 kms from Chennai Beach to Velachery.

However upon completion of the extension upto St.Thomas Mount, this distance would increase by an additional 5 kms.

2. Secondly, the statement that MRTS doesn't have Automatic Ticketing is completely wrong. Sources: The Hindu articles http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/article936125.ece http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Chennai/article420938.ece http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/article3394846.ece

However, these AVTMs are very unpopular (refer the sources). These points may be corrected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysun312 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Look buddy, you're the expert here. I'm just here to polish up the place. Just go change it and add on, if necessary. The others and I can't be the only ones doing all the edits here. If there is automatic ticketing, go put it down in the article. H-Man (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Kudos

I think the article has been in a great state of improvement since a few days ago, when the project started. I do encourage more people to come in and contribute, and for those who are currently at it, I like to show my gratitude and appreciation for this achievement. Featured class is a long way, but it will be a goal in the future. I wish to do the same with Chennai Metro when it opens.

What's next?

• Rolling stock: I added the section and placed in the tags. I've done this so that you can acknowledge the existence of this section and add on to it.

I'll add some more onto the list. H-Man (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have read the entire comment. But, right now, I reply only with regard to Chennai Metro. Information for Chennai Metro is available in plenty. CMRL (Chennai Metro Rail Limited) posts a lot of information on its own website. While media/press clippings are frequently uploaded on the site, the monthly newsletters serve as a progress card (now during the construction phase). Newspapers also regularly publish articles praising the CMRL for its good standards and fast pace of work. On the flip side, the same media writes articles that majorly criticise about MRTS, and the number of articles published is much lesser compared to Metro rail. CMRL has it's own official Facebook page through which updates are constantly given. Thus, in nutshell, I want to say that, collecting information for Chennai Metro would be a very easy task as there is so much of sourced content around the internet. The same is very difficult for MRTS because it doesn't have a website, neither the Southern Railway is too transparent to have an official Facebook page or at least listen to the public opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysun312 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional references - not included in the article (till now) - not so useful, but may be of use later or for the secondary articles on MRTS stations

The following are the additional references which are till now not included in the article and may not be so useful, but may be of use later either for this article OR for the secondary articles on individual MRTS stations:-

1. Power cable snap disrupts MRTS services for 1-1/2 hours - (Summary: same as what title says) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-07-26/chennai/28286000_1_mrts-trains-train-services-snag
2. Security system to be installed at MRTS railway stations - (Summary: Describes how anti-social elements use MRTS stations as a hub for illegal activities, how stations are dark and dangerous, and plan for deploying additional RPF to overcome these issues) http://www.hindu.com/2006/11/02/stories/2006110214410300.htm
3. Work on Perungudi-Taramani MRTS section will be over by May: Velu - (Also says: how additional problems like soil,etc occurred during this phase of construction and how these were overcome, how much additional funds were given) http://www.hindu.com/2004/07/19/stories/2004071910090300.htm
4. Preliminary work begins on road along MRTS at Perungudi - (Summary: describes additional link roads to Perungudi station and why the station is underutilised) http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/02/stories/2009060258070300.htm
5. Velachery MRTS service from next month - (nothing much) http://www.hindu.com/2007/09/20/stories/2007092058520300.htm
6. 18 new EMU services to ease Chennai's woes - (little bit on Mount Extn, and funds given by state govt.) http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/article2995777.ece
7. Passengers sore over irregular MRTS train timings (Summary: In the year 2000, How trains running from MRTS stations to Pattabiram, Tiruvallur directly were delayed due to unknown reasons) http://www.hindu.com/2000/10/26/stories/0426401y.htm
8. MRTS service to be partially suspended today (Summary: Due to inauguration of the new (supposed to be) assembly complex at Mount Road, MRTS services were affected for that day. The MRTS line which runs close to this currently abandoned building. Also, Information is given on special trains for IPL cricket matches at Chepauk stadium) http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Chennai/article243921.ece
9. MRTS to St.Thomas Mount by December, 2010 (Summary - Former Railway Minister Mr. Lalu said that MRTS extension upto St.Thomas Mount would be completed by 2010 in his 2008 Railway Budget. This reference also gives the details of funds allotted in this 2008 Raillway Budget) - http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/27/stories/2008022759130400.htm
10. Tenders invited to exploit space above MRTS stations (Summary: Gives details on amount of vacant space in some of the stations, CRZ clearance due to seismic zone change, ratio of funds by state govt. and railways, how state govt will benefit if commercial complexes are opened at stations, cost details of phases 1 and 2, lease period for land acquired) http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/23/stories/2009092386360300.htm
11. Inspection of Velachery MRTS section today (Summary: Reasons for delay in Thiruvanmiyur-Velachery section - cost escalation, facilities at Velachery station, Single lane services till Thiruvanmiyur, lack of approach road to Velachery station ) http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/05/stories/2007070555400300.htm
12. Railway directive to MRTS contractors - (Summary: A mishap - a girder fell - and as a result of this, measures were taken) http://www.hindu.com/2001/05/08/stories/04082238.htm
13. MRTS to Velacheri may be delayed - (Summary: Again, reasons for delay in commissioning Tiruvanmiyur - Velachery section due to soil etc. ) http://www.hindu.com/2006/11/11/stories/2006111115320300.htm
14. Plan to rope in MRTS for hop-on-hop-off tour (Summary:A plan to include MRTS for local tourism, so that tourists get a bird's eyeview from the elevated network running through the city) http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/10/stories/2008021057840300.htm
15. More buses will mean more passengers for MRTS trains (Summary: How individual stations lacked bus connectivity, how patronage increased - 2007 to 2009, only half the MRTS stations have bus connectivity,etc) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-08-19/chennai/28167953_1_mrts-stations-greenways-road-triplicane-and-kotturpuram
16. Ballastless technology to cut down track maintenance cost (Summary:Some new technology in Tracks in India, how this technology minimises maintenance cost. It was installed in phase 2) http://www.hindu.com/2003/01/24/stories/2003012409190300.htm
17. Safety inspection of Velachery MRTS track over (Summary: Shed at velachery, extn to Mount, CRZ clearance, etc ) http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/20/stories/2007072059610500.htm
18. Common ticket for bus, MRTS travel on the cards http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-03-27/chennai/28039990_1_traffic-wardens-public-transport-traffic-solution
19. Safety clearance awaited for MRTS link to Velachery http://www.hindu.com/2007/06/30/stories/2007063059960400.htm
20. CBI probing supply of escalators, elevators for MRTS stations - (Nutshell: Details on corruption in escalator contract, faulty escalators, how people are affected, no. of escalators, etc) http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/25/stories/2009072558730200.htm
21. Assembly opening: MRTS to stop for 30 mins - http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-03-11/chennai/28116310_1_t-rajendran-police-commissioner-mrts
22. Accessibility to Perungudi MRTS station improved (Nutshell: How perungudi stations' approach roads were worse and how corporation took measures to improve it. Can use in secondary article on Perungudi MRTS station ) http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-downtown/article1160517.ece
23. Railways to outsource MRTS maintenance (Nutshell:shabby and unsafe conditions at stations and private outsourcing) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-06-17/chennai/28318354_1_mrts-stations-southern-railway-beach-velachery
24. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mundakanniamman_Koil_(Chennai_MRTS) - Talk page of Mundakanniamman koil MRTS station has some references pertaining to it.
25. Skywalk likely to link two MRTS stations (Nutshell: Skywalk to be constructed between Chepauk and Chindadripet) http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Chennai/article2641908.ece
26. Signal disruption hits MRTS services (Nutshell: as in title) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-09-04/chennai/30112194_1_mrts-trivandrum-express-chepauk-station
27. Preliminary work begins on road along MRTS at Perungudi (Nutshell: Details on construction phase at Perungudi, link roads, encroachments, etc. Can use in secondary article on Perungudi MRTS station) http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/02/stories/2009060258070300.htm
28. PMO approached for date of MRTS inauguration - (Nutshell: The Prime Minister wanted to inaugurate the MRTS, however it didn't happen so, I guess) http://www.indianexpress.com/Storyold/8321/
29. Unified metropolitan transport body set up (Nutshell:- Can take a line from this article - i.e CUMTA plans to integrate various modes of transport in the city.) http://www.hindu.com/2008/03/07/stories/2008030758420100.htm
30. Patronage up for Velachery station (Nutshell: details on how patronage increased after extending services to Velachery) http://www.hindu.com/2007/11/22/stories/2007112260310300.htm
31. Acquiring land is key to completion of works by 2013 (Nutshell: Regarding extension to St.Thomas Mount) http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-16/chennai/28698965_1_velachery-and-adambakkam-adambakkam-st-thomas-mount-mrts-line
32. Kottur is the name, says ex-MLA - (Nutshell: An MLA wanted renaming of kotturpuram station - editors can use in the secondary article on kotturpuram mrts station) http://www.hindu.com/2004/11/30/stories/2004113012920300.htm
33. Trains to run on elevated stretch - (Nutshell: this article was published in 2004 and gives details on how the lines were planned to be constructed from tiruvanmiyur to vlcy and problems faced during this construction) http://www.hindu.com/2004/07/25/stories/2004072510190300.htm
34. Over Rs. 2,000 crore for infrastructure development - (Nutshell: few details on funds for extension to st.thomas mount) http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/19/stories/2006081920010400.htm
35. http://www.deccanchronicle.com/chennai/mrts-line-revision-derails-realty-dreams-251 "MRTS line revision derails realty dreams" Nutshell: Alignment changes for the extension upto St.Thomas Mount has affected residents having houses in the built up areas.Newly added link to the list (please don't comment/remark on this addition of a new link, if you wish to use this, you may, otherwise don't. It's just there on the talk page and doesn't do any harm to the article)Skysun312 (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysun312 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a litany of information. How about you put the information down? Or at least summarise in greater detail? That's honestly a lot of stuff to follow, and the existing article at its current state needs much more work before we include even more information. H-Man (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Skysun312. Great to see this much of information when I thought the article is reaching saturation. I now do realize that there is much more scope to improve. Thanks a ton! However, as H-Man mentioned, let us clean up the existing article, before we add new info (unless the info is very much crucial). Meanwhile, let us list our findings here in talk page and also maintain separately the statements to be added in the article. Once the article is clean, which I hope will happen in a week or so, we can add more info. What say? Discussions and criticisms welcome.Challengethelimits (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As I stated already, some of these references may be useful for the articles on the individual MRTS stations (pls note: User:Anbu121) , which don't have much information hitherto. These references may also be useful at a later stage in case we want to add information. I may put a one line summary on each of these references, but I would take some time. However, whatever references I've included in the list today, I have included the 'Nutshell field' which will help everyone to associate the reference with the corresponding section of the article.

Skysun312 (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

23 August edits

I had intended to salvage SkySun's criticism section/edits, with the intention to rewrite them at a certain point. Right now, I'm splitting up the section into subsections that would give some more insight on the criticisms. Overall I think these categories would fit the previous criticism section and collapse/condense them neatly in paragraph form.

Issues with current alignment

Environmental impact

Crime in the MRTS

Inadequate maintenance and usage of station facilities

I will repeatedly rewrite the stuff to make sure it stays neutral etc...

Also, does the MRTS have a first class? H-Man (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi H-Man, currently, first-class facility is available only in 9-car trains, and not in 6-car trains. However, we don't have necessary source yet. Can we add the statement and hunt for the source later?challengethelimits 05:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Challengethelimits (talk • contribs)

The 4 sub-sections could be as follows:

1.Issues with alignment

This would describe how the current alignment and the future alignment have several issues like - far away from residential areas, close to slums, land acquisition problems, etc. The information which is already present in this sub-section would be retained.

2.Lack of inter-modal transit facilities and link roads

This sub-section which I have proposed have several sources.

3.Crime in the MRTS OR "Safety and Security Issues"

Inadequate maintenance and usage of station facilities

4.Other Issues

In Other Issues, we can include Environmental Impact, and other miscellaneous issues.

The separate sub-section on Environmental Impact could be removed as it has very little sourced information - at max, you could get one or two lines of sourced information on this. The remaining sections which I have proposed have a lot of sourced information.

Regarding First class ticketing, I have found a source which says that it's available in only 9 car rakes. I would quote in inline citation in the corresponding section. I have also found a newspaper source that says that AC coaches in Sub-urban trains are not available and passengers are demanding for these. Skysun312 (talk) 08:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral and brief

I would try my level best to be as brief as possible, so that the criticism section doesn't become long, as it was before. I would also try to maintain neutral tone, deviations, if any, may be corrected by others.

Regarding expansion of criticism section

I understand that we're expanding the criticism section again. But, it won't be as long as what I had done long before. Nevertheless, I would ask you all to have a look at the criticism section in the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chennai_Mass_Rapid_Transit_System&oldid=505616815#Criticism

This was the version long before, just before including all those tags to this section. Please condense the points and put them in the latest version of the article. I had collected a huge number of references, sad to know some of them have been deleted from the article. Please have a look at this older version of the article - as in the link above - and re-build the criticism section by condensing the points and using the references mentioned there.

Skysun312 (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section and sources

Look, there is no need to put 20 sources in the same line in the introduction to the criticism section. It's UNNECESSARY and will not comply with Wikipedia standards. I understand the significance of the sources, but they should be placed where they NEED to be, and not grouped together with 20 others. It's TIME to change this. H-Man (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional Primary sources

Some primary sources are as follows: 1. http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/railwayboard/uploads/directorate/stat_econ/yearbook10-11/Year_book_10-11_eng.pdf This is from Indian Railways. Navigate to pages 57 an 58 to get the official details of cost of phase 2 extension and the date of sanction of the project. Just one line pertaining to MRTS is available in this pdf . 2. http://rti.railnet.gov.in/rtidata/scanned/14820.pdf CAG report on MRTS (Nutshell: says how Railways has handled MRTS project wrongly. 3. ' A primary source is criticising the MRTS regarding safety and security issues

Copy-pasting from the source

Quote: Mass Rapid Transit System at Chennai The Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) at Chennai which runs from Chennai Beach to Velachery covering 17 stations was introduced to decongest traffic within Chennai city. In all 14 station buildings were constructed in two phases with a total floor area of 2,11,099 Sq. m. and the remaining station buildings are still under construction though opened for train services. 'Due to poor patronage during off peak hours' the stations were generally empty posing serious threat to the passengers from anti social elements. Reports of 'murder', chain snatching and harassment of elderly and women passengers were frequent.

By this I mean to say, that these issues are very important for the article. Please note other editors that it's not just the media that finds these problems with the MRTS, but it's owner itself. So, it won't deviate from neutrality to criticise the MRTS on safety and security. The source is a primary source.

Source: Indian Railways, Security Management. Link: http://saiindia.gov.in/english/home/Our_Products/Audit_Report/Government_Wise/union_audit/recent_reports/union_performance/2011_2012/Railways/Report_no_14/Chapter_3.pdf

4. Navigate to page 2 of http://www.tn.gov.in/spc/annualplan/ap2010_11/ap1011ch7.6.pdf to get official details on funds. Little info available. 5. Do Ctrl F to find "MRTS" http://www.tn.gov.in/spc/annualplan/ap2009_10/ap0910_ch_7_7.pdf Some funding details are given in this primary source

'Please note that in India it's very difficult to get primary sources online, as Government websites are not so user friendly.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysun312 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Skysun312 (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

6. ENHANCING OF SECURITY IN MRTS SECTION TO PREVENT CRIME - 23-3-11 - by Southern Railways http://www.sr.indianrailways.gov.in/view_detail.jsp?lang=0&dcd=153&id=0,4,268 Skysun312 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

CAG Report giving details on Mundakanni Amman Koil Station

http://cag.gov.in/reports/railways/2004_8/chapter3.htm

Details on LA, cost, need of the station, problems faced, etc are given in this link. It's official information and not based from newspapers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysun312 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Some more news paper articles as sources.

I am not asking to use these sources right now. Please continue making modifications. However, some of these sources may be useful later. It may be useful for individual articles on MRTS stations - some of these articles are currently stubs. First, as discussed, let's finish the maintenance works on this article, and then see if we need these references

1. Travel by train, have a feel of Chennai charms http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/03/stories/2008070358460200.htm (Nutshell:TTDC launches Chennai city sightseeing tour using MRTS)

2. Amenities yet to be put on the rails Nutshell: lack of amenities at MRTS stations http://www.hindu.com/2006/09/20/stories/2006092019030300.htm

3. Economic Infrastructure of Tamil Nadu

http://www.economy*****.com/stateprofiles/tamilnadu/economic-infrastructure.html - Nutshell: Several infrastructure details on land used, track length,width, system capacity, cost details, etc. Replace ***** with watch

4.Passengers shun buses, switch to trains (Nutshell: Bus fare hike increased MRTS patronage by 25% in 2011) http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/cities/chennai/passengers-shun-buses-switch-trains-308

5. Velachery-St. Thomas Mount rail link sought http://www.hindu.com/2003/10/19/stories/2003101909420300.htm

6. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-08-30/chennai/29944669_1_metro-station-unpaid-area-underground-stations

How central will be a multi-modal transit point for all modes of rail transport.

7. Poor patronage for MRTS Ladies Special service www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Chennai/article111740.ece

8. Three avatars of rail services under one house - About St.Thomas Mount integrated station. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-11-24/chennai/28217999_1_suburban-trains-mrts-station-metro-rail

9.Security stepped up at MRTS section http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/24/stories/2011032462890900.htm

10. http://www.hindu.com/mag/2008/01/20/stories/2008012050110400.htm Some constructional aspects of some MRTS stations - use it for respective articles.

11. More commuters opt for trains, buses http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-24/chennai/30554583_1_suburban-trains-commuters-public-transport Nutshell: increase in petrol prices lead to increase in mrts commuters.

12. Transportation crisis in Chennai http://www.hindu.com/op/2009/06/28/stories/2009062850021200.htm Just couple of lines on poor patronage in MRTS

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysun312 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 

13. Experts discuss transportation provisions of draft master plan http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/27/stories/2007082758120200.htm Tells a line that there is lack of coordination between various authorities for MRTS.

14. Comprehensive transport infrastructure plan for Chennai ready Nutshell: A couple of lines on funding in MRTS http://www.hindu.com/2008/04/12/stories/2008041254390400.htm

15. 3-yr-old boy rescued from canal, struggling for life Nutshell: Incomplete and dangerous MRTS stations (as on 2011) pose threat to lives of passengers. A child fell into the Buckhingham canal from Kotturpuram MRTS station, which is nothing but sewage. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-01-31/chennai/28368167_1_sewage-water-railway-station-3-yr-old-boy Editors working on individual article on Kotturpuram MRTS station can include this in its "incidents" section.

16. Tirumailai-Velacheri service not before October http://www.hindu.com/2003/06/26/stories/2003062607860300.htm Can be used in this article or secondary articles on individual MRTS stations. Says constructional problems / aspects of phase 2.

17. Very old reference - very difficult to get. Indian Express, Madras Edition, 1994 http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=3YhlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wJ4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=813,1543448&dq=mrts triplicane | thiruvallikeni&hl=en

The details on MRTS stations in those days of construction - i.e. in 1994

18. “Raise wall on one side of MRTS stretch” Nutshell: Near chindadripet station, near the abandoned building which was supposed to become the Secretariat, the wall was supposed to be raised w.r.t security issues. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/article1552254.ece Can be used in respective MRTS station articles

19. Students to tackle mosquito menace.(Nutshell: Just the picture and its caption makes one understand how the areas surrounding MRTS look. This is esp. for those who are not from Chennai.) http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/28/stories/2007102859760100.htm

20. Commuter comfort yet to be fully on the rails http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/05/stories/2008020558180300.htm Nutshell: Several details on lack of maintenance, security issues and inter modal transit drawbacks at various MRTS stations. good reference with more details.

21. Intermittent showers hit traffic. Nutshell: How these intermittent rains made MRTS stations leaking and how the roofs turned into fountains. http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/05/stories/2010120560910300.htm

22. Youth falls from railway station roof, dies. Nutshell: can be used ONLY in the secondary article on Light House station. - in Incidents section. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-04-05/chennai/29383745_1_railway-station-roof-cricket-ball

23. VERY RARE DETAILS. http://www.hindu.com/2002/11/03/stories/2002110307590300.htm Inundation exposes lack of planning Nutshell:How MRTS pillars blocked natural flow of storm water leading to inundation. Environmental Impact - along the Buckhingham canala

24. http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/20/stories/2010112064520500.htm Some details on approach roads to some MRTS stations - can use in respective station articles. Service road work gains steam

Skysun312 (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Skysun312, thanks for the resources, but we need to work on what we have right now. It's important to boost the quality of the content present by re-formatting and rewording. When we all together agree that the article and the rest could benefit from additional resources, we will use what we have above, and request for more sources later. Having new and old content in the same place, while editing is exceptionally hard because you will have duplicate information that will then get cut out. Having editted this article multiple times, I have saw countless trends and I wish that we can put an effective end to unnecessary duplication and begin a more fruitful programme to edit and add. H-Man (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

24 August 2012 edits

I've substantially rewritten the Criticism section, and the source issue has been fixed. Except for the "Other Issues" section, please do NOT include any more sources. Feel free to ELABORATE the existing sources and explain. So for the most part, the Criticism section is finished.

Please, do not stack up 20 sources on the same line. Sources are useful, but when they're overused, it's abused. If you are going to use 50 sources to back up something, explain all of those sources, and why they support the statement you made. Otherwise, I will end up erasing all of those sources. I want this article to get a good rating, and stuff like that can impact ratings. I'm going to put in a new rule, only two sources can be stacked next to each other. If you are going to put in a third one, you have to summarise the second one and the third one. I'm going to be very stringent about this, because of what I had seen from this article. It's unsightly to readers and other users, and readability is something we must perfect with this page.

I will soon work on the "Future" page and fix it up over there. Additionally, I wish to request a rating by the end of next week, so we can see where we stand. Judging from what all of us had done over the past weeks, we have come a lot closer to reaching GA/A/featured status than a month ago, or say. H-Man (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with H-Man on this. I feel if the first two references for a statement are not enough to ground the stance, maybe, they are not good enough. The news of Obama becoming the President of United States was published in more than 50,000 newspapers. And, indeed, all of those sources were reliable. However, we can’t cite 50,000 references for that statement. I would personally detest the idea of reading an article that has fewer texts than source lines. I think the article is shaping up well, thanks to the efforts of all the editors involved. Hope this article goes through the rating process successfully. challengethelimits 04:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Challengethelimits (talk • contribs)

Fine. I understand the above. However, as I repeatedly keep saying, some of these sources may be used in the articles on individual MRTS stations which are currently stubs, and not necessarily in this article. Secondly, I believe we can use the primary sources, if required. Skysun312 (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

We should focus on the main article first. Stubs will be stubs. H-Man (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I won't be editing anything significantly in the main article. However I would post my opinions, if any, on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysun312 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Friends. Think we need to work on the Criticism section all over again, unfortunately. So much unnecessary info have crept in inadvertently. Do we really need subsections for this? Rasnaboy (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My answer to your question is yes, we do. Subsections are there to indicate a topic within the section that can be explained in greater detail.

In regards to the unnecessary information, I dispute that. I understand that some of the information there seems a bit "exaggerated", such as the animals present and the homeless. That is why I would like people such as Skysun312 to elaborate their sources meaningfully, instead of just adding more and more sources. We had a proliferation of sources in regards to the criticism section, and I actually condensed it a bit. With the subsections, I think the section has a succinct structure, as opposed to what I saw a month ago, when I saw a list of items.

I know there are topics out there that have their own articles regarding controversies. But due to the fact that the Chennai MRTS has a slightly low-significance in the projects, I do not think it is necessary yet to create an article dedicated to the controversies surrounding the MRTS. While I previously commented and replied to Skysun312 that what he had alluded to can suggest that the articles may be biased. He said himself: "THE MEDIA GOES HAMMER AND TONGS AGAINST THE MRTS", which I analysed as potentially biased.

However, with the same analysis, and information from Skysun312, there is very limited official information. SR, as I have seen through its website, contrasts vastly from the MTR or the New York City Subway, where the company/authority is very transparent and gives out press releases. Citing a general lack of information from the official sites, there is no other choice than to turn to the media, which complements the general lack of information from SR, with its own. With photographic evidence to support their rationale, which may be somewhat exaggerated to suit the media's needs, and without information from SR to dispute, we are left with no other choice than to maintain a substantial level of confidence and trust in using the media sources. I affirm this as some articles that I have seen pointed the good in the MRTS and even showed that the MRTS is trying to improve (although failing at its efforts). This is what we need to uphold neutrality - we must cite a point, and we must also attempt to indicate that the issue is undergoing some form of resolution, or that the party in question is contemplating on resolving it.

What we need to do is to elaborate on some of the sources, especially some of the statements which may sound exaggerated, such as the cows and dogs on the trains. I kindly ask Skysun312 to address this issue. H-Man (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not actually going to edit the criticism section, as my edits seem to deviate from some of the rules of Wikipedia. Other editors can come to a consensus regarding this section.

In case, you decide to go along with sub-sections, the ones currently present in the article are sufficient and would cover up all the issues that concern the MRTS. I would request the editors to write it in a way suitable to the standards of Wikipedia. If there is any factual or grammatical error in this section or anywhere in the article, I would correct it, otherwise I refrain from editing the criticism section. However, I would also post opinions on this talk page.

Secondly, regarding the website, I had already mentioned here that there is no official website of MRTS while Southern Railways website gives no information about MRTS, as also pointed out by others editors. Thus only way is to rely on the newspaper sources. There is not so much exaggeration in my opinion, because the MRTS actually suffers from so much criticism. However, as an editor suggested here, we can say they are trying to improve (with sources), thus maintaining neutral stand.

Some government websites give little information on MRTS. Performing complex google searches, I have got the links and have listed them already above in the section "Additional Primary Sources".

I may summarise (in a few lines) some of the sources regarding criticism section in this talk page as requested. Other editors would get an idea about these. Then they can move the content appropriately to the main article.

Skysun312 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

While I meanwhile summarise some of the sources in criticism section, I would like all the editors to read this article "Mass Rejected Transit System - Can Chennai's Mass Rapid Transit System revive itself?" published in Business Today April 2010. http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/mass-rejected-transit-system/1/5396.html . Although the article is 2 years old, the situation in MRTS is not much different. This article gives all details on the problems faced by the MRTS - the cause, problem and challenge. It comes up with possible solutions too. It gives a perfect picture with no exaggeration or deviation from neutrality, by analysing various aspects concerned with the MRTS. No other newspaper source has given such a wide coverage, that too considering various points of views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysun312 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I would not be wrong in saying that this particular article (Which I mentioned in the paragraph above) covers all aspects and problems of MRTS and possible solutions. Reading anyother newspaper article focusing on criticism or solutions of MRTS would either be mere redundancy (repeat of whatever is said in this business today article) or exaggeration or trivial issues (w.r.t wikipedia, the issues mentioned IN detail by other newspapers would be trivial - like cows, lifts, etc.).

So, I believe, this article could be used as a major reference by all editors. With this we can come to a consensus easily and write the article sticking to wiki's rules. If you don't believe, you may see reading all other newspaper source articles pertaining to MRTS, and then you will understand the quality of this particular article which I am talking about. I think this would majorly answer the problems (of editing )currently faced.

Also Please read the commentary section in the article - there are two commentaries. One commentary also mentions (just) a line comparing the system with two other systems across the globe, namely Hongkong and Singapore MRT Skysun312 (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Separate sub-section on extension to villivakkam may be removed - no source, plan dropped

This sub-section may be removed because we can't get enough sourced information. Moreover, this plan is completely dropped. Any extension of the Project beyond St.Thomas Mount is dropped as quoted in one of the sources.

Skysun312 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Corrections / Edits that can be made

The following corrections can be made

1. This is a grammatical correction.

"Opened in 1995 and extended twice in 2004 and 2007, the system's poor connectivity with other transit modes have had an impact on its ridership, drawing much criticism to its cost-effectiveness." This is present in the second paragraph of the article.

The word have has to be replaced with has.

2. The System map in the info box of the article has distances indicated along with the station. But, these distances marked in system map (that appears upon clicking "show") and the distances in the table (present in Infrastructure/Stations subsection) don't match exactly. Please checkup.

3. The table present in Infrastructure/Stations subsection may be updated with more details. The distances at which the remaining stations are going to be located are given in few of the references. All These stations are going to be elevated (this detail is present in some references). A word "proposed or u/c" may be included to avoid confusion between the stations in use and those under construction.

However, it's not necessary to include these details as the stations are still under construction, i.e. the details are not the final details

4. For the Rolling stock section, we can include the information about rolling stock used in sub-urban or local trains in Chennai. This is because MRTS rolling stock is almost same as the Sub-urban train rolling stock expect for the fact that lesser number of coaches are used in MRTS line because of poor patronage in comparison with the other 3 sub-urban train routes. Technical details may be included about the power supply , design of coaches, motors used, pantograph, etc same as that of Chennai Suburban Railway.

5. Images may be aligned properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysun312 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Skysun, Please incorporate the corrections. You have been working with this article for some time, and I believe you know what to do. I recently got an infro from a fellow editor that articles should not rely on too much of info from newspapers. I am not sure how much we can get info about MRTS from books. But let's keep trying that too. Great work! Challengethelimits (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Response to the previous comment

It's quite difficult to get books but whatever I have got, I think I've included either in the article or the talk page.

However we can get some government documents which are authentic, and much better than newspaper articles(in terms of what wikipedia wants). Please perform google searches for "MRTS chennai site:gov.in", or any other equivalent search command on google.

One such document I have got through such a search is as follows:

I have got some useful information from an authentic source - CAG (Comptroller Auditor General) [CAG does auditing and reporting for Govt. Projects. in India]

The summary of the report is given at the link http://www.cag.gov.in/html/reports/railways/2006_5/5of2006Railways/OVERVIEW.htm Kindly see chapter III in this link

The entire report is available at http://saiindia.gov.in/english/home/Our_Products/Audit_Report/Government_Wise/union_audit/recent_reports/union_compliance/2005_2006/Railways/Report_No_5/chap_3.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysun312 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have also added other non-newspaper sources in the previous sections of this talk page Kindly refer them. These are original government website sources.

Some more government sources:-

http://www.tn.gov.in/policynotes/archives/policy2002_03/hud2002-03e.htm

http://www.cag.gov.in/html/CAGReportSay/2006/PA-5.htm

Skysun312 (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nov 2013 Edits

Please understand that some valuable sourced information has been removed.

Please do understand that sourced technical / valuable information must remain on the article, irrespective of whether it is ve or -ve.

For example, following valuable authentic sourced Information has been deleted

1. Speed reduction due to "S" bends [Source: The Hindu]
2. Opening of Single Lane Services till Tiruvanmiyur [Source: CAG Audit Report]
3. Maintenance Free Ballast-Less Tracks [Source: The Hindu]
4. Plans to open IT offices in MRTS stations [Source: The Times of India]
5. Plans to open night shelters for the homeless at MRTS stations [Source: The Times of India]
6. Multimodal Integration - 40% patronage from 3 stations close to bus stops [Source: The Hindu]
7. Direct Trains to Gummidipoondi [Source: Business Standard]
8. Spikes & surges in patronage on special days [Multiple Sources]
9. Technical details on Rolling Stock like voltage etc [Source: Indian Railways Doc]
10. Some Information on Velachery - St Thomas Mount Extension [Multiple Sources]
11. Few lines on proposed/envisaged extension of MRTS to Mahabalipuram.

Some sourced lines in the criticism section too.

Sourced text/lines/paragraph - This must be reverted. You may rephrase it in your own words if you sense plagiarism from news articles.

Please compare my last version before your edit with the latest version of the article after your latest edit below - Request you to revert / rephrase / rewrite deleted sourced text

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chennai_Mass_Rapid_Transit_System&diff=580341803&oldid=579971795

Let's cooperate and put up relevant information and improve the article by consensus / discussion among us.

Thank you.

Skysun312 (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations" from the top yellow box on this talk page

I've removed this line "This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations." from the yellow box on the top of this talk page.

Reason/Justification for removal of this tag/line:-

Article has 150 references/citations. Moreover, there are 40 references in the "Further Reading" section.

Totally, there are 190 references and these are more than sufficient for this article.

These references include

1. Newspapers/News articles (Chiefly) - Chennai Editions of Newspapers/News websites of The Times of India, The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle, The New Indian Express and few other news agencies
2. Some Information available from Govt Websites (primary sources) like Southern Railways, Indian Railways, CAG Audit Reports, CMDA website, etc.
3. Google Books
4. Other / miscellaneous types of sources

Skysun312 (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes referencing tags get left behind after there are sufficient references on an article. In this case, I agree that removal of the tag is justified because of the number of direct footnote references. However, I view the Further Reading section on an article as if they were external links to non-website content, and therefore don't consider them as references. There isn't much on this type of section, but WP:FURTHER is a good place to start. Slambo (Speak) 12:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chennai Mass Rapid Transit System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115192249/http://www.sr.indianrailways.gov.in/view_section.jsp?lang=0&id=0,6,746 to http://www.sr.indianrailways.gov.in/view_section.jsp?lang=0&id=0,6,746
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110032115/http://www.deccanchronicle.com:80/131107/news-current-affairs/article/southern-railway-planning-hand-over-last-stage-mrts-project-cmrl to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/131107/news-current-affairs/article/southern-railway-planning-hand-over-last-stage-mrts-project-cmrl
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dc-epaper.com/PUBLICATIONS/DC/DCC/2013/11/07/ArticleHtmls/SOUTHERN-RAILWAY-PLANNING-TO-HAND-OVER-LAST-STAGE-07112013004041.shtml?Mode=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110411173229/http://www.sr.indianrailways.gov.in:80/view_section.jsp?lang=0&id=0,2,325 to http://www.sr.indianrailways.gov.in/view_section.jsp?lang=0&id=0,2,325

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chennai Mass Rapid Transit System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201185638/http://cag.nic.in/html/reports/railways/2006_5/chap_3.pdf to http://cag.nic.in/html/reports/railways/2006_5/chap_3.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sr.indianrailways.gov.in/view_section.jsp?lang=0&id=0,6,746
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20131110032115/http://www.deccanchronicle.com:80/131107/news-current-affairs/article/southern-railway-planning-hand-over-last-stage-mrts-project-cmrl
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20110411173229/http://www.sr.indianrailways.gov.in:80/view_section.jsp?lang=0&id=0,2,325

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Chennai Mass Rapid Transit System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029211141/http://www.hindu.com/businessline/2000/05/29/stories/092971rs.htm to http://www.hindu.com/businessline/2000/05/29/stories/092971rs.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/cities/chennai/passengers-shun-buses-switch-trains-308
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512211510/http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/cities/chennai/ac-suburban-trains-remain-paper-832 to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/cities/chennai/ac-suburban-trains-remain-paper-832
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=544770
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105180510/http://saiindia.gov.in/english/home/Our_Products/Audit_Report/Government_Wise/union_audit/recent_reports/union_compliance/2005_2006/Railways/Report_No_5/chap_3.pdf to http://saiindia.gov.in/english/home/Our_Products/Audit_Report/Government_Wise/union_audit/recent_reports/union_compliance/2005_2006/Railways/Report_No_5/chap_3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513204902/http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/cities/chennai/mrts-stations-not-right-track-009 to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/cities/chennai/mrts-stations-not-right-track-009
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130320021905/http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130317/news-current-affairs/article/seniors-turn-cleaners-put-railways-shame to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130317/news-current-affairs/article/seniors-turn-cleaners-put-railways-shame
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130413024322/http://deccanchronicle.com/130116/news-current-affairs/article/mylapore-mrts-unsafe-women to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130116/news-current-affairs/article/mylapore-mrts-unsafe-women
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813050403/http://saiindia.gov.in/english/home/Our_Products/Audit_Report/Government_Wise/union_audit/recent_reports/union_performance/2011_2012/Railways/Report_no_14/Chapter_3.pdf to http://saiindia.gov.in/english/home/Our_Products/Audit_Report/Government_Wise/union_audit/recent_reports/union_performance/2011_2012/Railways/Report_no_14/Chapter_3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131106130331/http://newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/article413626.ece to http://newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/article413626.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chennai Mass Rapid Transit System/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 09:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 13:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Starting this. At a quick look there are a couple of sentences at the end of paragraphs which aren't sourced, will have a look at text-source integrity later. A lot of single-paragraph sections, so potential MOS:OVERSECTION, although they are not very short so a closer look needed. Of more potential concern is the WP:CRITICISM section, it is usually better for criticism to be integrated into relevant sections. More detailed review to come. CMD (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review! I am meanwhile working on the initial comments.Magentic Manifestations (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead

While the lead touches upon all sections of the article in some way, it seems oddly truncated. "Opened in 1995, it was the first elevated railway line in India and is integrated with the wider Chennai suburban railway network" starts with past tense discussing history and then switches straight to present day integration. Is the implication it was part of the wider network from the beginning? Unclear why Thirumyilai and Velachery are not linked while all other termini are. The acronym "MRTS" is not introduced, and it is not immediately clear (although it seems implied from later context) that this is a shorthand way to refer to the system. Conversely, EMU is introduced despite not being used in the part of the body where EMUs are discussed (which used both "Electric" and "Electrical". The third paragraph starts directionally without stating what the starting point is, and perhaps "deviating right" could be changed to a cardinal direction. The operations paragraph has room for some more detail, for example "The MRTS system is planned to be taken over by Chennai Metro Rail Limited" feels oddly out of place given operations were last mentioned in the second sentence. Why are they taking it over, and when? Per MOS:INDIA, lakh figures should come with a conversion.

Addressing the points:

1. Have expanded the lead significantly
2. Have split the sentences (tense variation)
3. Terms linked once have not been re-linked. Others have been linked on the first appearence
4. MRTS acronym has been introduced in the first line
5. Cardinal direction given for the line mentioned
6. Takeover expanded to cover the points
7. mn figure given with lakhs

Magentic Manifestations (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

History

• "The Chennai Suburban Railway started operating in 1931 with a single metre gauge line from Chennai Beach to Tambaram and two more lines were added connecting Chennai Central with Arakkonam and Gummidipoondi in 1985." The source for this is a one page pdf from indianrailways.gov.in. This is presumably a primary source, but putting that aside I can't find mention of the gauge or of the Arakkonam or Gummidipoondi lines.

Have added alternate source stating the lines with the year as indicated.

• "In 1965, the Planning Commission set up a team to study to assess the adequacy and limitation of existing transport facilities, to determine the feasibility of different modes of transport and recommend phased programmes for development of transport facilities in major cities including Madras." This next sentence is sourced to this long pdf, also primary. I cannot find where the cited information would be, "1965" isn't found and Madras is mentioned only in the name of another report.

Have quoted an alternate source which states the year with the city

• "To supplement the existing suburban rail network in Chennai, a number of surveys were conducted by the Madras Area Transportation Study Unit (MATSU), which was set up by the Planning Commission during 1968–70 and the Metropolitan Transport Project (MTP), which was established by Indian Railways in July 1971." is sourced to this The Hindu article. The article gives the author as Vydhianathan, S., possible the same as "V. SRIDHAR", but I can't square how the article-given date "28 September 2003" matches the The Hindu date "Jul 07, 2001". The source also does not mention, "Chennai", "MATSU", "Madras", "1968", or anything I can see in the sentence.

Have provided alternate source and modified the sentence to quote only the same

• "The study identified eight important transport corridors including the 39 km (24 mi) north–southeastern rail corridor along the Buckingham Canal." This is cited to page 50 of an Indian National Academy of Engineering report. I suspect this is meant to be pages 41-42, as the document has pages prior to page 1 which affect the browser-given page number, and 41-42 have some of the cited information, namely the eight corridors and the Buckingham Canal route, but it doesn't have the given length.

Have modified the sentence to quote only as per source.

I'm a bit perplexed following this, as I'm not sure how the text and sources mismatch to this extent. The next source is similar, not mentioning 1975, Kasturba Nagar, or Manali Road, although it does mention 59.38 km and the pass-through destinations.

This was a combination with the previous source. Have modified the lines appropriately.

Skipping to the last sentence to check, "The project was intended to be implemented in four phases: Chennai beach to Thirumayilai, Tirumailai to St. Thomas Mount, St. Thomas Mount to Villivakkam and Villivakkam to Ennore.", doesn't seem exactly in line with the source, which notes there is a four-phase plan today but doesn't state this was the original goal.

The source dates back to 2005 and mentions a 2003 CMDA report which has allocated budget for the projected four phase plan. As of today, the 3/4 phases have been scrapped which is indicated later in the article.

Skipping to the sentence "The first phase was projected to cater to 6 lakh passengers per day but the actual patronage turned out to be lesser than the projected estimates.", this is sourced to a newspaper article from before the phase was constructed, so while it does provide a projection it is not able to compare that to actual patronage.

It is mentioned in the previous source. Linked the source here as well.

Skipping again to the start of Infrastructure, the given source does not mention the at-grade sections at terminals, the parallel suburban rail network, Buckingham Canal, or the Coromandel Coast.

It does mention at grade section at terminal stations (Beach, Velachery). In fact, it gives a detail report of stations which are elevated and are at grade with the length and year.

Alignment along the Buckingham canal is already sourced previously in the article. Have re-quoted the same source., which also shows the map with the parallel course of suburban network with MRTS. Addressed the coromandel coast point as well.

These source mismatches seem extensive, and I'm not confident they can be overhauled effectively within a GAN timeframe, especially as it seems each source will have to be checked. (On a side note on sources, the article has quite a few citations from The Times of India. Per WP:TOI this should be done with caution, although I did not see anything that raised alarm in a brief sweep.) My suggestion would be to take some time and go through the existing text carefully, fixing sources and identifying what is already sourced, before then fixing up the unsourced text. CMD (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Have added comments inline. Thanks.Magentic Manifestations (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The comments in line address some of the identified issues, but they don't speak to the wider question of why these errors exist and therefore what might need fixing throughout the article as I mentioned. A GAN is not meant to be a thorough finding and fixing every issue but an assessment, hence my advice about next steps. CMD (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. There were some sections which were referenced earlier which I had not thoroughly verified before a GAN. While I acknowledge the bigger issues, I am in the process of re-validating it line by line, should be complete in a day. Will confirm once that is done. Thanks!Magentic Manifestations (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis I have gone through the entire article and modified as required to add new sources and make changes to the content as required. Understand this ought to have happened earlier, but better late than never. Let me know if you have any further comments. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis, reminder ping. It looks to me like you may have intended to fail this one? -- asilvering (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I was giving some time for reworks, and wanted to see if there was an explanation. I have been looking through the article again, and feel that while the underlying structure and information density is good, the article still needs more work to meet all the GACR.

Issues remain with paraphrasing. "studies conducted by RITES during 1987 and 1994, taking into account population growth and the capacity of public transport system" is almost 1:1 from the source. "the project had costed ₹280 crore (US$35 million) which was completely borne by the Government of India" runs close to "Cost of this section was Rs.280 crore which was entirely borne by the Indian Railways." "IRCTC opened the first food plaza at Thiruvanmiyur station" seems taken from the title "IRCTC opens 1st food plaza at Thiruvanmiyur MRTS station". "With the completion of connectivity to St. Thomas Mount, the MRTS will be able to integrate into the grid of the Chennai Suburban Railway and the Chennai Metro Rail, thus sharing an inter-modal transportation interchange with both the systems and facilitate uninterrupted movement of commuters across different rail lines in the city" is too close to "The completion of MRTS is crucial for Chennai as once connected it will be integrated into the grid of suburban rail and metro rail, thereby allowing uninterrupted movement of commuters across different rail lines in the city". There are also quite a few places in the article where specific words are copied, which is sometimes necessary but comes off as potentially worth copyediting when alongside these longer paraphrasing examples. I did not check this extremely thoroughly, other examples may exist.

On broadness, this article does quite well. Some of the sources discussed the development of turnback facilities as the line extended which improved capacity, probably worth including. Odd to read "On Sundays and holidays, 51 trips are operated" when the number for weekdays is not given. The finances subsection could note who subsidises the shortfall.

Could not verify the licence of File:Chennai Rail.png. If there is a licence page provided by Chennai Metro Rail, it should be noted in the file description.

On neutrality and stability there are no obvious issues. It is also worth noting here that there were substantial improvements to the article both before and during this GAN. My recommendation would be to come back to this article after a period to get a fresh look at how it might be edited. Thank you for the work here, I learnt a lot, and it's always a pleasure to read about an expanding metro system. CMD (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Wonder if

Is MRTS part of Chennai Suburban Railway or separated (same prices, network, ticketing...) ? Bouzinac (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chennai Mass Rapid Transit System/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 04:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 19:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead, layout, and wording are good.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are listed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All sources are reliable. Primary sources are used a lot, but only for relevant information.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article accurately incorporates information from sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No text is copied. Previous issues with close paraphrasing have been corrected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Contains what readers would expect to see about a transit system.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article remains on topic about the subject.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article addresses criticism but does not place undue weight.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are free.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Contains photos of the system, a transit map, and a chart that provides information.
	7. Overall assessment.

Quickfail criteria

1. Y
2. Y Earwig score is 7.4%.
3. Y No cleanup tags.
4. Y Article is stable.
5. Y The previous GA nom failed due to issues with use of sources. At a glance, it appears that these issues have been addressed.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead section

Comments by — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs)19:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

My corresponding reverts in green. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Body does not mention the date of July 1971. The lead was not updated to reflect the edits made to the body. It is corrected now. Y
• Body does not mention the height of 14 meters. Removed Y
• "Chennai beach" should be capitalized. This occurs a few times in the article. Y
• Probably don't need to repeat the phrase "north–southeastern rail corridor". Y
• Maybe wikilink at-grade crossing. Y
• Saying "0.1 million" feels like worse phrasing than "100,000". Y
• Infobox should probably list daily ridership rather than annual, and also say the date for the statistic. Y
• Infobox lists the opening date as 1 November, probably a typo for 16 November. Y

History

• First sentence of "Background" is a bit complicated. I'd suggest making it two sentences and rephrasing a bit. Y
• I've done some minor copyediting of the whole article, to improve conciseness and clarity. Have made some changes where wikilinks were affected.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Future plan

• I think the "Future plan" section should be a sub-section of "History", since most of the events have happened already. Agree. Have rearranged the sections. Y
• It's not clear to me what "vacated a stay on the same" means, but maybe this is a legal term I'm unfamiliar with. It is a legal parlance. It simply means that an earlier hold order was rescinded. Have done slight modification to it. Y
• You mention that the land for Puzhuthivakkam station was not acquired by 2013. This is fine, but are there any sources that say when the land was acquired? Could not find it specifically. But have added a line on the status of construction over the years, which covers the same. Y

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Infrastructure

• The route taken by the MRTS line has been criticised By whom? reworded Y
• Is the sentence about the decline of the canal necessary? The sources cited don't mention the MRTS. I believe it is required for context and continuity. It explains as to why the pillars were placed in the canal as it was not a navigable waterway then. Have tweaked it for continuity. Y
  • I'm concerned that this is original synthesis. You say that the pillars were built despite the plans to restore the canal, so you would need a source that says there is a connection between the two. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Magentic Manifestations: The article now meets all the GA criteria, but in this case, I'll be strict about the "issues noted in a previous GA review that still have not been adequately addressed" rule. If there's a possibility of a copyright violation, I want you to address it even if it isn't part of the article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• In February 2009, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) announced plans I don't think the announcement itself is notable, right? Combined it into a single sentence. Y

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Operations

• The current operational route length The term "current" is a MOS:WTW. I think it'd be fine to not specify the time, since the rest of the article is clear what the timeline is. Y
• I don't think you should say "As per the schedule release by Indian Railways", since we can assume this is a fact that doesn't need attribution. Y
• I think the "Timing" section contains a bit too much info. If we don't have secondary sources about timing, it's not really relevant. As the section is too short to warrant a separate section, have combined it under the head of operations. I do agree that timings are not necessary as per WP:NTT and have taken those off. Regarding the trains handled, as it is data, it is acceptable usage of primary sources for veracity. Apart from that there are secondary sources backing up other relevant lines. Y
• I'd suggest making the bar chart bigger so that it's legible. Y
• I think you meant to say Chennai Unified Metropolitan Transport Authority instead of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. Y

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin I have addressed the comments. If there are anything further, please do ping me as I might be unavailable for the next few days. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Image status

• @Magentic Manifestations: I just noticed that the source for File:Chennai Rail.png doesn't list it as being under CC BY-SA 4.0. The website said all rights are reserved, at the time the image was uploaded. It looks like the previous GA reviewer had the same comment and you didn't explain where you got the license information from.— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Vigilantcosmicpenguin I didn't find the image being used anywhere in the article. Can you specify where it has been used? Magentic Manifestations (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  Let me clarify, I'm just pointing out that an issue in a previous GAN was not adequately addressed. The article is acceptable since the image was removed, but I think I should still address everything the previous reviewer said. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Vigilantcosmicpenguin The image was removed as the previous reviewer had raised the issue. As it is not being used anymore, guess that addresses it. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

As of this revision.
Sources are mostly good. Primary sources are used appropriately. I have noticed a few issues where you don't exactly reflect the source. @Magentic Manifestations:, please address the sources I listed as having issues.

1. Y
2. Y
3. Y
4. Y
5. Y I have mild concerns with close paraphrasing from this source, but not too bad.
6. Y
7. Y Except it doesn't mention the 1983–84 date. As it is already referenced by #5, removing it and adding another source.
8. Y
9. Y
10. NY The source mentions Velachery, not Thirumaliyai. Also, I would suggest specifying the statistic of 9,000 passengers per day, just to be more precise. Have added the relevant source for Thirumayilai. I have modified the second statement to mention only the capacity here. Have taken the patronage to the relevant section.
11. Y
12. Y
13. N Doesn't verify the statement, but the other source already does, so this one isn't necessary. Done.
14. Y
15. N Neither this nor the following source mentions the date of 27 June 2004. The date was incorrect. As mentioned elsewhere in the article as well, the correct date has been updated as per source as 26 January 2004.
16. N see above
17. Y
18. Y
19. Y
20. Y Except these two sources don't exactly say the project wasn't completed as planned—maybe instead add a bit more detail about what the protests were. Have modified it to be more in line with the sources.
21. Y
22. Y Though I don't think this is really worth including if it's only a primary source.
23. Y Except it doesn't mention the Madras High Court. Have added a source which states the original stay order was issued by MHC.
24. Y
25. Y
26. Y
27. Y
28. Y
29. N Does not mention the 4.5 km length. It mentions that a 500m stretch is pending of the 5 km line. As it is not explicit, have modified it accordingly.
30. Y
31. Y
32. Y
33. Y
34. N The sources don't really make this statement. Have made it simpler and gave additional sources
35. N see above
36. Y
37. Y
38. Y Though you're missing a citation for the 14 May 2014 date, which is later than this source Mentioned in the table as well
39. Y
40. Y
41. Y
42. Y
43. Y
44. Y
45. N Doesn't verify the number of stations. It is there as a part of the citation added at the top of the table.
46. Y
47. Y
48. N Doesn't verify that the canal was not used for navigation. Tweaked it.
49. Y
50. Y
51. Y
52. Y
53. N It's fine, though, since the other source verifies this. Moved to appropriate location.
54. Y
55. Y
56. Y But doesn't seem necessary for understanding the article.
57. N Doesn't specifically mention the Chennai MRTS, so I feel like this can be removed from the article. Added a secondary source apart from the primary generalised source.
58. Y
59. Y
60. Y
61. Y
62. Y
63. Y
64. Y
65.   Times of India is only sometimes reliable, and I'd argue "TOP 10 INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT CHENNAI RAILWAY STATION" is not reliable. replaced.
66. Y
67.   A brief, routine press release doesn't seem like a great source for this. The source is used elsewhere as well, where it substantiates the special services being run. Have removed it from this juncture.
68. Y
69. Y
70. Y It doesn't say it abuts the station, but this is just a phrasing error. Corrected
71. N Not sure why it was there in the first place! Removed.
72. Y
73. Y
74. Y
75. N Ehh, this source mentions that the IT corridor is on Mahabalipuram Road, but it doesn't mention the MRTS... I think it'd be best to just not mention Mahabalipuram Road in the article, and just call it the information technology corridor. The previous three sources talk about MRTS aligned along the OMR and the last source talks about the location of IT corridor along the OMR. If I remove the reference to OMR, then there will be nothing linking the statement substantiating the location of MRTS along the IT corridor. Probably will add a word to allude that the IT corridor is one of the things along the road.
76. Y
77. Y Doesn't mention the net loss, but this is okay since it's a simple calculation.
78. Y
79. Y
80. Y
81. Y
82. Y
83. Y
84. N This doesn't say the criticism is from the public, but from a director. Added a separate line with the source.
85. Y
86. Y
87. N It says escalators were not installed, not that they are non-functional. Mentioned as such.
88. N Modified the sentence to state as such.
89. Y
90. Y
91. Y
92. Y
93. Y
94. Y To be precise, it says more than 45 minutes. added
95. Y
96. Y Except it doesn't actually mention holidays. removed
97.   This source doesn't look like an RS to me. removed as it is already backed by other sources.
98. N Not specific enough to back up the claim. removed as it is already backed by other sources.
99. Y
100. Y
101. Y
102. Y
103. N It mentions that a ticket costs ₹10, but it doesn't say this is a cap. reworded it.
104. Y
105. Y
106. Y
107. Y
108. Y I think it'd be better to cite a secondary source for this, but if none exist, it's probably still worth including. added.
109. Y
110. NY Mentions the 2008 stat, but not the 2000 stat. added.
111. Y
112. Y
113. N The source lists three stations. corrected.
114. N The source does not say there have been several schemes; it only mentions one. tweaked the sentence.
115. Y
116. Y
117.   Again, this sort of press release doesn't seem useful, but the secondary source about this statement is good. There are two other sources for the same and the press release confirms special trains being run for cricket matches. So, do not think this is an issue here.
118. Y
119. N This source mentions special buses, not trains. removed it as there are other sources.
120. Y
121. Y
122. Y
123. Y
124. Y
125. Y
126. Y
127. Y

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin Will go through and address the comments. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin, Have addressed the comments. Do let me know in case of further clarifications/discussions on this. Thanks!Magentic Manifestations (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I think you have properly addressed my comments about the sources. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.